Opinion ID: 2383478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Compact Issue.

Text: The 1905 Compact between Delaware and New Jersey, codified at N.J.S.A. 52:28-34 to -46, was created with the approval of Congress. 34 Stat. 858 (1907). The purpose of the Compact was to resolve a long-standing boundary dispute between the states regarding a twelve-mile arc around the Town of New Castle on the Delaware River. The Compact was also designed to resolve a twenty-seven-year-old law suit that was pending before the United States Supreme Court involving Delaware fishing regulations. N.J.S.A. 52:28-34. The dispute began in 1872 with Delaware authorities arresting twenty-two New Jersey fishermen on the Delaware River for fishing without a Delaware license. The fees demanded of New Jersey fishermen were greater than those charged to citizens of Delaware. The State of the Question of Jurisdiction and Boundary Between New Jersey and Delaware, A.D. 1873 (1873) (on file in the State Library). The Compact provided that the inhabitants of each state should enjoy a common right of fishery in the waters of the Delaware River between the low-water marks on each side of the river with the exception of previously-granted private rights of fisheries, N.J.S.A. 52:28-37, and established a joint commission to draft laws to regulate the catching and taking of fish in the Delaware river and bay between said two states. N.J.S.A. 52:28-38. The Appellate Division concluded that the Compact preempted any unilateral action by the State of New Jersey. We disagree. By its terms, the Compact pledged the member states to adopt uniform regulations only if the commissioners from each of the states recommended uniform regulations to them. Specifically, the Compact states only [u]pon the adoption and passage of said laws so recommended by the respective legislatures of said two states, said laws shall constitute the sole laws for the regulation of the taking and catching of fish in the said river and bay between said states. N.J.S.A. 52:28-38. Although the commissioners recommended, and the states have adopted, certain fishing regulations, they did not recommend purse-seine regulations with respect to menhaden.
We have recently reviewed the law concerning such an interstate compact. Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Ass'n v. City of Camden, 111 N.J. 389, 545 A. 2d 127 (1988). Those compacts are not the product of a single state, but rather of both states. Thus, [i]t follows that neither creator state can unilaterally impose additional duties, powers or responsibilities that infringe on the compact. Nardi v. Delaware River Port Auth., 88 Pa. Cmwlth. 558, 490 A. 2d 949, 950 (1985) (citing C.T. Hellmuth & Assocs., Inc. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 414 F. Supp. 408 (D.Md. 1976); Bell v. Bell, 83 N.J. 417, 416 A. 2d 829 (1980)). Only when the compact recognizes the unilateral jurisdiction of the compact states may the compact's agenda be subject to single-state jurisdiction. Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Ass'n, supra, 111 N.J. at 399, 545 A. 2d 127. On the other hand, courts have regularly held that a bi-state agency may be subject to complementary or parallel state legislation that does not intrude on the mission of the agency. Id. at 400, 545 A. 2d 127. The simplest example is that bi-state agency employees must observe stop lights in New Jersey just as they would be required to in Pennsylvania, even though neither state had adopted such regulations within the framework of the compact. Ibid. (citing Nardi v. Delaware River Port Auth, supra, 490 A. 2d at 952 n. 10).
With that background, we first note that there is, in the words of the Attorney General, a condition-precedent to any claim of exclusive jurisdiction under the Compact, namely, that the commissioners of both states first must have agreed to recommend a joint regulation of a particular species of fish that would constitute the sole laws contemplated by the Compact. N.J.S.A. 52:28-38. The joint commission did propose and New Jersey did enact such laws with respect to certain species and fishing practices, L. 1907, c. 131, but Delaware did not. See N.J.S.A. 52:28-38 Historical Note. Absent such a concurrence, each state presumably would retain the right, at least within its territorial waters, to regulate the taking and catching of fish in the river. N.J.S.A. 52:28-38. See Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 248 U.S. 113, 39 S.Ct. 23, 63 L.Ed. 155 (1918) (Kentucky was not prohibited from legislating to protect the fish within its boundaries simply because it had entered into a compact with Indiana that provided for concurrent jurisdiction); State v. Mick, No. 83-05-0092-93 (Del. Super. Ct. May 2, 1984) (1905 Compact did not require passage of uniform laws unless recommended by commissioners). We also note that the decree of entitlement to the river bed within the twelve-mile arc around Newcastle entered by the Supreme Court in 1935, New Jersey v. Delaware, 295 U.S. 694, 55 S.Ct. 907, 79 L.Ed. 1659 (1935), has no disabling effect on New Jersey's regulation of the eastern-shore waters of the Delaware. Absent any restraints created by the Compact, New Jersey exercises its sovereign powers fully in those waters. See State v. Federanko, 26 N.J. 119, 127-29, 139 A. 2d 30 (1958) (gambling offense on New Jersey side of Delaware River found amenable to our criminal jurisdiction although the United States Supreme Court found State of Delaware owned the river bed). In addition, we take note of the fact that the purse-seine regulations do not directly conflict with any regulations enacted by the State of Delaware. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, § 919(b) (1991). They appear in that sense to be complementary or parallel. Because New Jersey's position with respect to purse seining is in no way inconsistent with that of Delaware, there is, as the Attorney General puts it, no current dispute between Delaware and New Jersey, but simply a dispute between New Jersey and Ampro.