THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 25, 1995 TAG: 9506250085
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA
SOURCE: BY BETTY MITCHELL GRAY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RALEIGH LENGTH: Medium: 97 lines
Proponents of a plan to issue easements and charge commercial marinas for the use of state waters are racing with the clock as General Assembly leaders press their fellow lawmakers to finish their work and leave town.
The latest draft of a plan, backed by Rep. Jean R. Preston, a Carteret County Republican, to levy a $1,000-an-acre fee on commercial marinas in exchange for a 50-year easement to use those waters, is scheduled to be debated by the House Finance Committee Tuesday, during what could be the last week of the 1995 legislative session.
The latest version of the bill - at least the 10th draft in about a year - picked up the support of one commercial fishing trade group late last week after changes were made to clarify the rights of fishermen in areas covered by easements.
The bill's supporters hope this endorsement will help the measure avoid a showdown in the Council of State, a committee comprising the governor, the lieutenant governor and other top state officials.
``We're trying to make as many people happy with this bill as we can,'' Preston said from the House floor last week. ``But I don't know if we have succeeded.''
``Because we've got a deadline, we're going to present this bill to Finance,'' she said. ``But what Finance will do, I don't know.''
Last year, the Council of State agreed to delay action on its own easement policy for commercial marinas and deferred to the Assembly, whose leaders wanted to help craft the policy.
But the council set a Dec. 1 deadline for the easement plan, and the Assembly could miss that deadline if it adjourns for the year without adopting a plan.
That's a scenario coastal marina operators - who said the Council of State's plan to levy a fee of 10 cents per square foot of waterway used by marinas and limit easements to five to 10 years would be devastating to their industry - hope to avoid.
``We would like the General Assembly to act because they represent the people,'' said Harry Schiffman, owner of the Salty Dawg Marina in Manteo and a member of a study committee that helped draft an earlier version of the bill.
``I hope they will act in a timely manner.''
Schiffman and other supporters of the measure say it's a compromise between those who want to charge marinas for their use of state waters and those who don't.
And they say the bill won't affect a longstanding policy that protects public access to state waters.
But the state's largest conservation groups and some officials in the state environmental agency continue to oppose the bill.
J. David Farren, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, said the bill is ``tailored to provide a giveaway to large developers'' and ``does not strike a reasonable balance.''
Farren said on Friday that the bill would increase the rights of private property owners at the expense of public access to state waters and would have far-reaching effects on commercial fishing in North Carolina.
He also questioned whether it would violate a section of the state's constitution intended to prevent lawmakers from conferring a special benefit to a limited group.
Late last week, Farren and other critics of the bill lobbied Finance Committee members, trying to slow its progress during the critical final days of the session.
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.
Last week a House Rules Committee unanimously approved a version of the bill to require any new commercial marinas to pay a $1,000-per-year fee for a 50-year lease for the use of state waters and allow one 50-year renewal of the lease.
But some commercial fishermen worried that the version of the bill approved by the rules committee would limit their access to fishing grounds. These concerns prompted lawmakers to try early last week to rework the bill.
The latest draft includes language that stipulates that easement holders cannot prevent the public, including commercial and sports fishermen, from using waters covered by the easement. And the draft stipulates that any waterfront property owners cannot seek an easement for a new marina without first receiving a permit to build it from the Division of Coastal Management.
These changes were intended to prevent waterfront property owners from obtaining easements and then barring the public from using the waters before structures are built in the areas covered by the easements.
Jerry Schill, executive director of the state Fisheries Association, said those changes were sufficient to address the organization's concerns about the bill, and the commercial fishing group will support Preston's efforts to move the bill through the House.
``We feel that the major concessions made by supporters of the bill have resulted in a bill that is much better than earlier drafts,'' Schill said in a press release late Friday. <:wq! by CNB