THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, July 19, 1995 TAG: 9507190436
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA
SOURCE: BY BETTY MITCHELL GRAY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RALEIGH LENGTH: Medium: 66 lines
A two-year debate over access to public waters and the rights of waterfront property owners is expected to receive scrutiny from the state House during the next two weeks, when a bill governing easements for submerged lands is expected to come to a vote.
The bill has been on a tortuous track in the House since a study panel reported its findings in early May. It has been reviewed by the House Rules Committee and Health and Environment Committee and twice by the House Finance Committee.
And as the measure has wandered through the General Assembly, more individuals and groups are being drawn into the discussion.
Several members of the Moratorium Steering Committee, the latest panel to review the bill, worried last week about its effects on commercial and sports fishing and questioned the bill's easement fees.
``Is this a welfare program for marina operators?'' said B.J. Copeland, director of N.C. Sea Grant, at a meeting last week in Morehead City.
The House Health and Environment Committee last week removed an amendment that would have required the state to charge ``fair market value'' for public waterways used by marina operators and some other waterfront businesses.
The committee restored a provision in the bill that would charge a $1,000-an-acre fee on commercial marinas in exchange for a 50-year easement with the option to automatically renew the easement for an additional 50 years.
Because of offsetting credits also provided in the bill, some large waterfront property owners could receive an easement for little or no charge.
Some of the state's largest environmental groups and supporters of the amendment said the proposed $1,000-per acre fee and offsetting credit equaled a ``give-away'' of public trust waters and argued for fees based on the fair market value of those waters.
But the bill's principal House sponsor, Rep. Jean R. Preston, a Carteret County Republican, called the proposed ``fair market value'' fee exorbitant and said that the provision would be devastating to coastal businesses.
Besides the change in the recommended easement fee, the latest version of the marina bill also clarifies that an easement granted to a waterfront property owner applies only to submerged lands that lie under a structure.
Preston said Monday in Morehead City that she expects only a few additional technical changes in the wording of the bill - now in its 12th draft - to be made before it moves to the House floor for debate.
But some lawyers with the state attorney general's office, members of some environmental groups and one state coastal regulator say they are concerned about a provision granting property owners access to deep sea vessels.
Division of Coastal Management Director Roger Schecter said this provision may lead to the construction of longer piers, particularly in shallow coastal sounds where water deep enough for large vessels lies great distances from the shoreline.
North Carolina does not charge a fee for marina operators in exchange for the use of state waters, but recent court rulings appear to require the state to issue an easement for ``for-profit'' marinas. The fees would not apply to privately owned piers and boathouses.
The latest draft stipulates that easement holders cannot prevent the public, including commercial and sports fishermen, from using waters covered by the easement. And the draft prohibits waterfront property owners from seeking an easement for a new marina without first receiving a permit to build it from the Division of Coastal Management. by CNB