Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha spoke with our South County Bureau reporter, Alex Nunes, about recent developments and Neronha’s thoughts on the subject of shoreline access. Listen to the edited interview, or read the transcript below.
Alex Nunes: A federal judge dismissed the first lawsuit brought against the state’s new shoreline access law. A new lawsuit has been filed in state court. Do you expect that people will continue challenging this new law until something sticks?
Peter Neronha: Well, I think they’ll continue to challenge it. Nothing may ever stick. And it’s my expectation that nothing will stick in the end. But yeah, certainly there are people, not everybody, but there are some people – you notice the plaintiff classes are, frankly, pretty small. From what I can tell, you know, a couple of people here, a couple people there. And when you think of all the shoreline along Rhode Island, I think most Rhode Islanders don’t have a problem with the concept of this law. In fact, I think most Rhode Islanders are pleased that there is now some definitive demarcation between what is private property and what the public has access to.
Nunes: What do you see as the legal justification for saying that people can be 10 feet beyond the seaweed line? I mean, I’ve heard people say, “The seaweed line, that makes sense. That seems historically consistent, but this 10 feet, you know, where did that come from? And why is that justified?”
Neronha: Well, look, I think if you go back and look at the testimony – I imagine you have for the General Assembly, and the commission that weighed in on this – that’s where that concept comes from. If you’re going to stand on the shoreline and not have your feet wet, you got to have some space to do it at high tide. If you’re going to take seaweed from the shore at high tide, you got to have some space to do it. It’s really practical, quite frankly. And I think that was – I don’t think, I know that that, in part, if not, in whole, was what the General Assembly and the commission were thinking when they came up with this 10 foot line. There’s a historical element to this, and it will play out in court. And, you know, it’s not going to play out in the newspaper, or on an interview with me. It’s going to play out in the court papers that we file with the court.
Nunes: So you’re also involved in two other rights-of-way cases over beach access in the Weekapaug and Watch Hill sections of Westerly. In these cases, you’re going up against two fire districts. These are very affluent, well connected people. Have you received any pushback because of your involvement in these shoreline access cases?
Neronha: Just the opposite. I was in Westerly for a parade on Sunday, and what I heard from the paradegoers, at least four or five times, was expressions of gratitude for our team’s involvement there. I think sometimes when there’s a minority of people that are vocal, we forget that the majority of people don’t live on the shoreline and want to exercise their right to the shore. It’s one of the reasons they live in Rhode Island. So I haven’t received any pushback other than the litigation.
Nunes: These two rights-of-way cases you’re involved in Westerly, the town of Westerly is also involved in them. In the Napatree Point case, you’re codefendants in that [with the Attorney General’s Office representing the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management]. What type of role does your office take when you are involved in something with a town? Do you defer to the town to lead on it? How does that work?
Neronha: No, you know, I don’t I like to think – we don’t really defer to anybody. I think we’re a really strong law firm, frankly, for the people of the state, and certainly we’re the largest law firm in the state. But I think we’re also an incredibly strong group of lawyers. And so, you know, with respect to whoever’s representing the town, I am not going to let the town lead on an issue that matters to Rhode Islanders, you know, all across the state.
Nunes: The reason I asked that particular question is Westerly doesn’t have a stellar reputation for defending public access over the years. It’s known more for conceding to the shoreline property interests. So if you were in a situation where the town wanted to settle with the Watch Hill Fire District in the court case, or wanted to cut some deal with the Weekapaug Fire District with regard to the Coastal Resources Management Council Review, what would you do?
Neronha: You know, any settlement would have to involve us. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have what’s called global peace. And I wouldn’t agree to anything that I didn’t think was the right thing for Rhode Islanders. I don’t want to, you know, I don’t really know how to put this – you have probably followed Westerly more carefully than I have in terms of their past work in this area. But we’re going to do what we think is right irrespective of what they would do.
Nunes: So right now, there are several shoreline rights-of-way before CRMC. Do you expect to get involved in any others?
Neronha: I can see us getting involved in other ones. Whether we’ll get involved in all of them, I don’t know. But we’re going to get involved in them as necessary. And in instances where entities are making vertical access effectively impossible through parking restrictions – you know, whether that’s a municipality that’s doing that, whether it’s an association that’s doing that – that may be something that we need to take on down the road as well.
Nunes: Attorney General Neronha, thanks for speaking with me.
Neronha: Sure, Alex. Thanks for the questions.
Alex Nunes can be reached at anunes@thepublicsradio.org
