Evaluating Recent Legislative Efforts to Reform Oyster Leasing in Virginia

In January of 2016, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 关注林恩黑文河系统中牡蛎养殖者与高地所有者之间的冲突报道, boaters, 以及其他用户和拟议的立法，该立法将暂停在该河流系统内的新租赁, 成立了一个工作组来审查此事，并就如何解决冲突提出建议.  Very quickly, 很明显，大多数被提出的问题并不是针对林恩黑文河的.  Thus, while the report that was issued made certain recommendations specific to the Lynnhaven, 它还指出了需要通过立法或法规解决的问题，这些问题需要在弗吉尼亚州的整个牡蛎种植区得到解决.  In August 2018, 州长宣布成立“州长工作小组，以促进弗吉尼亚州蛤蜊和牡蛎经济的可持续增长”(the blog created by the Waterfront Property Law practice group at Pender & Coward documented the workings of this second group). 

In the time since, 在有意义地解决这一领域的一个主要问题方面几乎没有取得什么成就, that practically all of the ideal oyster growing grounds in the state have been leased, 导致新进入者试图租用不太理想的土地或在更频繁使用的水域的土地.  Our Waterfront Property Law practice group has explained in its blog 弗吉尼亚州采取的政策是如何导致大量非生产性牡蛎养殖场的扩张，而不是紧凑的, high-producing, 牡蛎场适当地位于大片未开垦的洼地中，供公众使用和享用.  These policies, in turn, lead to more contested leasing hearings before the VMRC, which, along with the sheer volume of applications that have flooded the agency in recent years, is responsible for the backlog in lease applications that persists to this day.  The General Assembly has imposed better notice requirements for lease applications in Va. Code § 28.2-606, requiring notice to be posted on the agency’s website and sent by registered or certified mail to, among others, nearby riparian property owners, and has made explicit in Va. Code § 28.2-607, VMRC在决定是否转让租约时考虑与许可案件相同的公共信任因素的义务.  These changes, 同时，在租约申请发出前，让土地拥有人留意有问题的租约申请, 对理想场地的低效使用采取什么措施呢?正是这种低效使用，才使得这些有问题的申请成为必要.  In addition, it has changed the process for renewing leases, 但这些变化可能无助于解决目前租赁土地的低效使用问题, in any event, will do nothing in the near-term, although they may help address the problem of “spite” leases (i.e. leases sought by those who intend to block another activity, such as a proposed dredging project, or are simply sought to deny access to a competing oystering operation).  

The changes in this area are codified in Va. Code § 28.2-613.  The term of the leases remains 10 years, and the leases can still be renewed at the end of their terms.  If there has been significant oyster production, reasonable plantings of shellfish, 或在租赁期内在租赁土地上进行重要的牡蛎养殖作业, the renewal is automatic once the owner submits a renewal form.  If not, then the VMRC may still renew the lease if there was good cause for that failure.  Before the amendment, 这一决定需要考虑到MSX和Dermo疾病的流行程度，以及该地区传统上是否生产商业数量的牡蛎.  Now, in addition, 委员会亦须考虑在作出许可决定时须考虑的公众信任因素，以考虑续期是否符合公众利益.  However, 这在很大程度上可能是无效的，因为它只会出现在在十年租赁期内的任何时候没有重大使用租赁土地的情况下，从而使对使用效率低下的土地的续期更加困难.  Under that standard, 承租人可以在租用的土地上种植一个季节，仍然可以获得自动批准.  In addition, the General Assembly directed the VMRC to set a fee structure for lease renewals.  That fee, currently set at $150 in 4 Va. Admin. Code § 20-1350-30(B), is designed mainly to help defray the agency’s costs and is not a significant expense, so it is also unlikely to reduce the number of renewals. 

Even if these reforms were more impactful, they would still take significant time to actually take effect.  After all, the leases that are in effect now are contracts between the state and the lessees.  这些合同在执行时受现行法律法规的约束.  换句话说，合同执行后发生的任何立法变化都被推定为仅适用于未来, 新法律将只适用于在规约生效之日后订立的租赁合同，除非大会明确表示相反的意图.  See Bailey v. Spangler, 289 Va. 353, 359, 771 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2015) (“For this reason, we interpret statutes to apply prospectively ‘unless a contrary legislative intent is manifest.’” (quoting Bd. of Supervisors v. Windmill Meadows, LLC, 287 Va. 170, 180, 757 S.E.2d 837, 843 (2014))).  The General Assembly did not make any such intention clear in the bill amending § 28.2-613, 因此，这些修订可能只适用于在修订生效日期之后签订的租赁.  这意味着，这些条款的影响将在修订生效日期后签订的租约开始到期约十年后才会感受到. 

This, of course, 提出了一个问题:大会为什么没有在修正案中列入溯及既往的措词?  可能的答案是，这样做可能会导致根据联邦宪法合同条款提出的法律挑战.  这样的挑战是否会成功，很大程度上取决于任何溯及既往的修正案对州政府和租赁人之间的交易的改变程度，以及这种改变对于亚洲博彩平台排名于公共目的是否合理和必要.  See Baltimore Teachers Union v. Mayor of Baltimore, 6 F.3d 1012, 1014-1022 (4th Cir. (支持一个城市减少教师工资是合理的，因为它没有拒绝其他方法来实现减少预算的公共目标，也没有对其合同义务施加比实现这一目标所需的更严重的损害).  While the state could certainly prevail in such a challenge, again, depending on the nature of the particular amendment, 大会可能认为最好避免任何潜在挑战的费用和不确定性. 

Until such time as it does decide to try to impose amendments retroactively, the General Assembly’s options to address the issue are limited.  This means that conflicts between lessees, on the one hand, and riparian property owners and other users of the state’s waterways, on the other, are likely to continue to increase.  以前，河岸财产所有者可以对过于靠近海岸的牡蛎租赁做出回应，如果他们满足法规的其他要求，他们可以将部分滨水作为河岸种植地分配, but recent amendments to Va. Code § 28.2-600，至少在分配的位置和规模上给予VMRC自由裁量权，这使得该工具的效果有所降低.  See Va. Code § 28.2-600(A)(“专员只须将一处河岸种植地分配给他，而专员须, in his discretion, deems appropriate to encompass as much as one-half acre of ground, subject to the Commissioner’s discretion with respect to the precise location ....”).  The owner’s best option is to take advantage of the new notice procedures, hire counsel, and make his or her case before the VMRC that the lease is not in the public interest. 

Matt Hull is a Pender & Coward attorney focusing his practice on waterfront law and eminent domain matters.