A Chesapeake Bay Land Grab?

Or just a sensible policy? From the Bay Journal, More coastal land along the Bay could get federal ‘protection’

Broad stretches of marshes along the Chesapeake Bay’s shores could soon gain federal protection under a Reagan era conservation program popular among conservatives and progressives alike.

Bills in the House and Senate would add 277,000 acres to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, a nationwide network of low-lying beaches, barrier islands, wetlands and nearby uplands considered highly vulnerable to punishing tides and waves. A little more than half of the new acreage would be drawn from tracts in three Bay-region states: Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.

The little-known program, signed into law in 1982, takes an unusual approach to conservation. A chunk of the protected acreage is already public land. But properties in private ownership at the time of their inclusion remain in private hands. What’s more, the land can still be developed — the “coastal barrier” designation doesn’t stop any concrete from being poured.

But it doesn’t help it happen either. Under the program, lands within the system are prohibited under most circumstances from receiving any development subsidies from the U.S. government.

“It simply says this land is going to roll with nature, and if you’re crazy enough to build there, you can do so with your own cash,” said Skip Stiles, the former executive director of the nonprofit Wetlands Watch. “It’s not heavy-handed.”

Want to get a road built? Sorry, no infrastructure grants for you. Need federally backed flood insurance? You’re out of luck. How about disaster assistance after a storm? You’re on your own.

That’s part of its staying power, supporters say. More than 40 years after its inception, the program continues to attract fans from both sides of the political aisle, Stiles said. The Senate version of the latest bill to augment the stockpile of designated places, for example, is sponsored by Tom Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, and Lindsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina.

“This fiscal savings appeal to the conservative types, and the habitat preservation appeals to the tree huggers,” Stiles said.

That rare example of bipartisanship is no guarantee of passage. With elections looming in 2024, attempts to get anything done through federal legislation risk turning into a slog. But the bills’ backers say they are hopeful they can overcome political divisions without making too many waves.

Sounds like how things should have been in the first place, but since this involves taking away to ability to do certain things as a result of government action, resulting in lower value, does this constitute a taking under the 5th amendment? ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."