Opinion ID: 201086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Asserted Massachusetts Statutes

Text: First, we are extremely doubtful that the Massachusetts statutes on which Ten Taxpayer relies apply to the SMDS site. Obviously, no permit was required for the SMDS if Massachusetts has not purported to regulate activities on that site. Ten Taxpayer asserts claims under three Massachusetts statutes: Mass. Gen. Laws chapters 91, 130, and 132A. On our reading of Massachusetts law, none of those statutes applies to the erection of a tower on Horseshoe Shoals. In Count I of its complaint, Ten Taxpayer asserts that Cape Wind failed to comply with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 130. Ten Taxpayer is correct that chapter 130, which regulates fishing and Act. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 1802(11); id. § 1821(e)(2)(A); id. § 1823(c)(2). -21- marine fisheries in Massachusetts, applies broadly to all marine fisheries and fish within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth. Id. § 1. Ten Taxpayer's claim, however, arises under § 16, which is considerably more narrow: Any occupation under this chapter of tide waters or any work done therein, shall be subject to the pertinent [permitting and licensing] provisions of chapter ninetyone. Significantly, the term tide waters is not defined in chapter 130 or in the implementing regulations, and there are no published Massachusetts cases interpreting § 16. Ten Taxpayer argues that tide waters embraces all waters subject to the rise and fall of the tides –- a definition that, it says, includes Horseshoe Shoals, where Coast Guard records indicate that the sea depth varies by as much as three feet between high and low tides. In our view, that interpretation is too broad. Massachusetts cases referring to tide waters, tidal waters, tidewaters, and the like invariably concern developments in harbors or along the shoreline. See, e.g., Trio Algario, Inc. v. Comm'r of Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 795 N.E.2d 1148, 1151-53 (Mass. 2003) (discussing wharves and other occupations of tide waters); Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp. v. Massachusetts, 393 N.E.2d 356, 358 (Mass. 1979) (describing the shores of the sea as tidal areas); Comm'r of Pub. Works v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., 32 N.E.2d 277, 281 (Mass. 1941) (discussing the construction of piers and wharves as -22- the erection of structures in tide waters). At most, the term refers to the waters belong[ing] to the Commonwealth. Trio Algario, 795 N.E.2d at 1153 n.9. Ten Taxpayer relies on the ancient case of Commonwealth v. Vincent, 108 Mass. 441 (1871), which opines that tide waters means waters, whether salt or fresh, wherever the ebb and flow of the tide from the sea is felt. Id. at 447. On its facts, however, that case involved only the question whether a pond on the mainland qualified as tide waters by virtue of a narrow channel connecting it to the sea. Notwithstanding the broad dictum, we do not think Vincent supports Ten Taxpayer's sweeping notion that tide waters embraces any location where the depth of the sea is affected by the tides, even in waters that do not belong to the Commonwealth. We conclude that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 130, § 16 is inapplicable to the SMDS site by its own terms. In any event, even if § 16 were applicable on Horseshoe Shoals, we would still conclude that no permit was required. That is because § 16 merely subjects structures erected in the tide waters to the pertinent provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 91. Chapter 91 requires a license from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for structures built in protected waters. See Mass. Regs. Code tit. 310, § 9.05(1)(a). The DEP's regulations, however, limit this licensing and permitting requirement to activities in waterways and filled tidelands. -23- Id. § 9.04. Neither of those terms, as defined in the regulations, embraces Horseshoe Shoals.12 Consequently, Cape Wind was not obligated to seek a permit for its data tower under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 91. Finally, Ten Taxpayer asserts in Count II of its complaint that Cape Wind was required to obtain approval for the SMDS under the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 132A. Chapter 132A expressly provides that Nantucket Sound is within the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary. See id. § 13(c). With few exceptions, the statute prohibits the building of any structure on the seabed in any ocean sanctuary. Id. § 15. From this, Ten Taxpayer concludes that Cape Wind erected the SMDS in violation of chapter 132A. The problem with this theory is that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (DEM), which is charged with implementing the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, id. § 12C, including the care, oversight and control of ocean sanctuaries, id. § 14; Mass. Regs. Code tit. 302, § 5.09, has expressly disclaimed authority 12 Under DEP regulations, waterway means any area of water and associated submerged land or tidal flat lying below the high water mark of any navigable river or stream, any Great Pond, or any portion of the Atlantic Ocean within the Commonwealth. Mass. Regs. Code tit. 310, § 9.02 (emphasis added). Horseshoe Shoals is not within the Commonwealth under the SLA, and nothing in the Magnuson-Stevens Act alters that fact. Similarly, the SMDS is not located on filled tidelands, which are defined as former submerged lands and tidal flats which are no longer subject to tidal action due to the presence of fill. Id. -24- over Horseshoe Shoals. In a letter to counsel for Ten Taxpayer dated January 24, 2002, Myron Gildesgame, the DEM's director of the Office of Water Resources and the agency's official Ocean Sanctuaries Coordinator,13 explained that the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary is not considered to include the Horseshoe Shoals area. Although chapter 132A purports to include Nantucket Sound in that sanctuary, that legislation was passed prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Maine II. Now, he concluded, jurisdiction over the central portion of the Sound, including Horseshoe Shoals, is with the federal government. Gildesgame was even more explicit in response to a subsequent letter from Ten Taxpayer: While I appreciate your legal research . . . relative to state jurisdiction claims, the Department and the Ocean Sanctuaries Program have not claimed jurisdiction over the area of the sound which includes Horseshoe Shoals, and respectfully decline to seek to expand our current jurisdiction. That is the end of the matter. Because the responsible Massachusetts agency has disclaimed regulatory authority over the 13 The Ocean Sanctuaries Coordinator is a position created under the DEM's regulations. See Mass. Regs. Code tit. 302, § 5.09(3). The Coordinator is charged with carrying out the responsibilities of the DEM under the Ocean Sanctuaries Act and is authorized to perform or order investigations to determine whether particular activities are consistent with chapter 132A. Id. -25- SMDS site,14 we hold that Cape Wind was not required to seek approval for the project under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 132A.