Judges: CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
Filed Date: 2/22/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Dear Mr. Sanner:
This is in response to your letter of July 19, 2004, in which you requested an Attorney General's opinion regarding the following questions:
1. May the West Cameron Port and Harbor Commission issue permits and leases, without the permission of the State Land Office, on the beds, bottoms and air space above navigable rivers, streams, lakes or bays adjacent to banks of privately or publicly owned lands, within its territorial jurisdiction? If so, may the Commission establish and collect fees and rental charges for these permits and leases? Who is entitled to the funds generated from these permits and leases?
2. May the West Cameron Port and Harbor Commission, as a "deepwater port" of the Millennium Port Authority, issue permits and leases without the permission of the State Land Office and without the permission of the MPA, on the beds, bottoms and air space above navigable rivers, streams, lakes or bays adjacent to banks of privately or publicly owned lands, within its territorial jurisdiction? If so, may the Commission then establish and collect fees and rental charges for these permits and leases? Who is entitled to the funds generated from these permits and leases?
3. May the Commission, with the consent of the Millennium Port Authority, but without the permission of the State Land Office issue the permits and leases as set forth above? If so, who is entitled to the funds generated from these permits and leases?
In addressing your questions, it will be assumed that the beds and bottoms of the navigable water bodies you described are those beds and bottoms owned by the State of Louisiana, the so-called state-owned water bottoms. This opinion does not address any privately-owned portions of water bottoms.
In order to render an opinion, two underlying, basic questions must be examined and answered, as follows:
1. DOES THE WEST CAMERON PORT AUTHORITY HAVE THE SAME LEASING AUTHORITY AS THE MILLENIUM PORT AUTHORITY?
The Millennium Port Authority("MPA") was created as a political subdivision by Act No.
The only real connection between the West Cameron Port Commission ("WCPC") and the MPA is that the WCPC is required to submit the name of one nominee to serve as an appointed voting commissioner of the MPA. La.-R.S.
The West Cameron Port, Harbor and Terminal District was created as a political subdivision under La.-R.S.
2. Does the West Cameron Port Commission have authority to lease,as lessor, state-owned water bottoms?
With a few specific exceptions, such as mineral and oyster leases, the State Land Office is responsible for the control, permitting, and leasing of encroachments upon public lands and water bottoms, and for creating an overall and comprehensive plan for the preservation of state lands. La.-R.S.
In addition to its leasing authority, the State Land Office is generally responsible for granting permits to ". . . construct, create, alter, improve, extend, or maintain any wharf, pier, dock, bulkhead, landfill, structure, or other encroachment . . ." La.-R.S.
Application of Chapter; exemptions
This Chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Piers, wharves, structures or other improvements within the jurisdiction of any deepwater port commission of this state, including but not restricted to the authority to grant permits to construct, create, alter, improve, extend, or maintain any wharf, pier, dock, structure, or other improvement, and the granting of any permit for any of such purposes shall be and remain in the deep-water port commissions as to any such activity heretofore or hereafter performed or for which permit heretofore was or hereafter is sought.
It is important to recognize the distinction between a permit and a lease, as applied to state-owned water bottoms. Although a deep-water port commission has authority, under its enabling legislation and under R.S.
Under La.-R.S.
jurisdiction are not "owned, acquired or leased as lessee" by the commission, but remain public things, owned and managed by the State in its sovereign capacity, and
incapable of being alienated. Gulf Oil Corporation v. StateMineral Board, et al.,
Port authorities generally not having authority to lease state-owned water bottoms within their jurisdictions, an interpretation of La.-R.S.
Conclusion
Based upon the above analysis, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that:
The West Cameron Port Commission is not a part of the Millennium Port Commission, and the West Cameron Port Commission does not have the same leasing rights as the Millennium Port Commission. The West Cameron Port Commission has only those leasing rights granted to it in its own enabling legislation, La.-R.S.
The West Cameron Port Commission has the exclusive authority and responsibility, within its territorial jurisdiction, to issue permits for the construction, creation, alteration, improvement, extension or maintenance of any wharf, pier, dock, structure or other improvement. Since this permitting authority is granted to the port commission by its enabling legislation and by R.S.
The West Cameron Port Commission does not have the authority to lease to third parties any of the state-owned water bottoms lying within the port commission's territorial jurisdiction, that authority being reserved to the State Land Office.
Since the West Cameron Port Authority lacks the statutory authority to lease, as lessor, state-owned water bottoms, it is unnecessary to determine the recipient of such lease proceeds. With regard to permit fees, those would presumably be received by the port commission, deposited, and disposed of, in the same manner as the other use and service fees currently being collected by the commission under authority of
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
By: _____________________________CHARLES C. FOTI, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Terry F. Hessick Assistant Attorney General
CCF, Jr./TFH/tp
Mr. Glen Kent Public Lands Administrator State Land Office — Division of Administration 12th Floor — DNR Building Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Messenger
RE: House Concurrent Resolution No. 56
Dear Mr. Kent:
You have advised this office that under the provisions of La. R.S.
You have further advised that by virtue of House Concurrent Resolution No. 56 enacted during the regular session of 1989, the provisions of La. R.S.
In connection with your duties you have first asked this office as to the effect of the suspension of a law which authorizes the state to collect a fee or charge for the use of its property. Secondly, in any event, you have asked this office what steps the State Land Office should take concerning unauthorized encroachments on State lands.
It is the opinion of this office that if certain structures are existing on State waterbottoms without benefit of a lease or permit of any kind, the individuals are trespassers upon State land subject to eviction as would be the case with any unauthorized possessor of property.
Moreover, and more importantly, allowing individuals to possess State property without the state receiving remuneration of any kind would be in violation of Article VII, Section 14 (A) of the 1974 Constitution which prohibits the donation of assets of the state.
It would seem to us that legislation designed specifically to prevent the state from receiving revenue for the use of its property would be unconstitutional from this article alone, but, in addition, we are of the opinion that allowing individuals to possess and occupy State waterbottoms without charge is an alienation thereof in violation of Article IX, Section 3 of the 1974 Constitution.
Furthermore, regardless of the constitutionality of any law passed by the legislature prohibiting the charging of a fee for the use of State property, we are of the belief that you, as public lands administrator, are under a duty to see that unpermitted and unauthorized works on State waterbottoms are removed. We refer you specifically to Article
Works built without lawful permit on public things, including the sea, the seashore, and the bottom of natural navigable waters, or on the banks of navigable rivers, that obstruct the public use may be removed at the expense of the persons who built or own them at the instance of the public authorities, or of any person residing in the state.
The owner of the works may not prevent their removal by alleging prescription or possession.
If we may be of further service in this matter, please advise.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. Attorney General
BY: ___________________
DAVID C. KIMMEL Assistant Attorney General
DCK: moj