New Jersey v. Delaware
Headline: River boundary ruling limits New Jersey’s exclusive control and lets Delaware block a proposed LNG terminal that reaches into Delaware waters by recognizing overlapping regulation of outshore projects.
Holding: Article VII of the 1905 Compact did not give New Jersey exclusive control over all riparian improvements; New Jersey and Delaware share overlapping authority, and Delaware may lawfully block extraordinary outshore projects such as the proposed LNG terminal.
- Allows Delaware to refuse permits for large outshore industrial projects extending into its waters.
- Preserves New Jersey’s control over ordinary wharves up to the low-water mark.
- Requires coordinated, dual-state reviews for major coastal projects crossing the boundary.
Summary
Background
New Jersey and Delaware first agreed a 1905 compact that addressed fishing and riparian rights but did not settle their river boundary. In 1934 this Court held Delaware owned the riverbed within a twelve-mile circle up to the low-water mark on New Jersey’s side. The dispute here arose when a company tied to British Petroleum proposed an LNG unloading terminal that would extend roughly 2,000 feet from New Jersey’s shore into the area the Court had said belonged to Delaware. Delaware’s environmental agency denied a permit under its Coastal Zone Act, and New Jersey sued, saying Article VII of the 1905 compact gave it exclusive authority over wharves starting on its shore.
Reasoning
The Court agreed with the Special Master that the Compact’s phrase “riparian jurisdiction of every kind and nature” does not mean New Jersey has exclusive sovereignty over outshore structures. Reading the compact’s unusual wording together with Article VIII (which preserves territorial limits unless expressly changed) and the 1834 New Jersey–New York compact language, the Court concluded Article VII preserved New Jersey’s ordinary riparian rights but did not strip Delaware of authority within its own territory. The Court relied on the parties’ long course of conduct and New Jersey’s own coastal management filings that anticipated dual-state permit reviews. The result: New Jersey controls ordinary wharfing by its landowners, but Delaware may regulate or prohibit extraordinary industrial outshore projects in its waters. The Court therefore upheld Delaware’s denial of the LNG terminal permit.
Real world impact
The ruling means large industrial piers or transfer terminals that extend from one State’s shore into another State’s waters can be subject to regulation or denial by the sovereign State owning the riverbed. Developers and shoreline landowners must plan for multi-state review and possible vetoes for projects that go beyond ordinary wharves. The Court entered a decree reflecting these limits and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens agreed in part but would treat New Jersey’s beyond-low-water authority as subordinate to Delaware’s police power. Justice Scalia dissented, arguing Article VII gave New Jersey exclusive control over wharfing out from its shore and that Delaware could not veto the LNG project.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?