Lawsuit filed to end harassment of beach users along Maine coast

Plaintiffs intend to overturn “faulty” 1989 decision by Maine Supreme Court

(Wells, Maine) At a press conference today at Moody Beach in Wells, attorneys for 23 individual Plaintiffs announced that they have filed suit in Cumberland County Superior Court against 10 individual Defendants who have been demonstrably complicit in actions causing Maine citizens to be “threatened, harassed and chased off land that belongs to them.”

The case is about who owns the intertidal land in Maine, the land bounded by the low-tide mark and the high-tide mark. That includes almost all of Maine’s beaches. The Plaintiffs’ legal arguments will pursue a central finding: that intertidal land is public land, held by the state of Maine in trust for all its people.

“We held our press conference today at the scene of the crime, the symbolic home of the 1989 Bell versus the Town of Wells decision by the Maine Supreme Court,” said Benjamin Ford, one of the three attorneys who will represent the Plaintiffs. “As former Chief Justice Saufley has noted, those decisions thirty years ago contained ‘faulty legal analysis.’ We will delineate that faulty analysis as the case proceeds, and in the end, we’re confident Maine law will once again clearly state that the people of Maine own all the beaches along the coast, and all the intertidal lands.”

Since the narrow 4-3 Bell decision in 1989, public beach rights have been drastically reduced on Maine’s extensive coastline. That decision focused on the “inter-tidal land,” or the area between the high and low-water mark on Maine’s shores. It effectively restricted use by declaring that if private up-land owners (those who live above the highwater mark closest to shore) could provide a deed for their land stating ownership to the “ocean,” the general public would be in violation of trespass laws if using the shoreline below that mark.          

The Bell decision overturned centuries of precedent, inexplicably vesting ownership of Maine’s coastal inter-tidal zone to upland landowners. The decision also inflicted direct harm on those who rely on the inter-tidal including clammers, seaweed harvesters, and other marine waterfront workers. Now, even lobstermen, fisherman, and oyster farmers, people who are lawfully working on intertidal land, are being harassed by upland owners who wrongfully believe they own the rocks and mud flats in front of their houses.  

When the 1989 decision is finally reversed, Maine will rejoin the vast majority of U.S. states that allow use of the coast by all people. Reversal would also boost Maine’s all-important tourisim and marine-based economies, and benefit residents and visitors alike by providing clarity to what many have called an ambiguous and frustrating law.

Ford said the Plaintiffs hope the resolution of their case provides all people the right to use Maine’s shoreline for exploration and personal enjoyment. The case is likely to attract widespread support from growing number of citizens and businesses seeking more freedom to use coastal lands, including backlot owners, seaweed harvesters, aquaculture businesses, researchers, surfers, beach-goers and anyone who wants to experience the beauty and serenity of Maine’s unique coastal lands.

Several Maine businesses have voluntarily launched a web site to publish information about the litigation. For more, visit www.OurBeaches.me. For more information about Archipelago Law, visit: https://archipelagolaw.com

###