After Congress deauthorized the federal Stonington Harbor breakwater in 2016, who owns it and who is responsible for maintaining it?

Plain-English summary

Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) asked who owned the Stonington Harbor Breakwater and the land under it after Congress deauthorized the former federal project in December 2016. Attorney General George Jepsen concluded that Connecticut owns both and that DEEP regulates the breakwater's maintenance.

The opinion separates the submerged land from the structure. Under 43 U.S.C. § 1311, title to lands beneath navigable waters within state boundaries is generally vested in the state. Connecticut's public trust doctrine also covers submerged land waterward of the mean high tide line. DEEP told the AG the breakwater sits entirely below that line and within Connecticut's jurisdiction, so the AG concluded the state holds its underlying land in trust for public use.

Title to the breakwater required a further inference. The opinion says federal deauthorization statutes provide "no direct guidance" on what deauthorization does to ownership of a structure. The Department of the Army had indicated that deauthorization would end the United States' interest, leaving the state to determine ownership under its own law. Because Connecticut held the underlying land and the AG found no other claimant with a legal interest, the AG called Connecticut the "next logical owner" of the structure. The opinion did not identify an automatic federal transfer rule for deauthorized breakwaters.

What this means for you

For state coastal officials

The AG's conclusion rests on DEEP's information that the entire structure is below the mean high tide line and within state jurisdiction. DEEP regulates maintenance under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-359 et seq. The opinion identifies the regulator but does not set a repair plan or funding source. It also recommends contacting the Coast Guard about its navigation light on the waterward end because the agency may not have known about the deauthorization.

For Stonington and nearby property owners

The AG found no statutory or other authority for a municipality, political subdivision, or private party to claim this breakwater. It said no part of the structure rested on their land and none had previously held an ownership interest. That finding concerns this breakwater's specific location and title history.

For researchers of other federal harbor works

Follow the opinion's two questions separately: who owns the submerged land, and what legal effect did deauthorization have on the structure? The AG emphasized that the federal statutes did not themselves supply a direct answer to the second question. Other works may have different location and ownership facts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Check current law and any later title or maintenance developments before using its conclusion for a present project.

Common questions

Did federal deauthorization itself transfer the breakwater to Connecticut?

The AG did not identify a federal transfer provision. It said federal deauthorization law gave no direct guidance on the practical impact. The Army's 2014 letter expressed its view that deauthorization would end the federal interest; the AG then applied the land's ownership, Connecticut law, and the absence of another claimant to reach the state-ownership conclusion.

Why does the mean high tide line matter?

Connecticut's public trust doctrine places title to submerged lands waterward of that line in the state for public use. DEEP reported that the land under the breakwater is entirely below the line and within state jurisdiction.

Does DEEP own or regulate the breakwater?

The AG said the State of Connecticut owns it. DEEP is the state agency responsible for regulating maintenance of structures in the relevant tidal, coastal, or navigable waters under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-359 et seq.

What did the opinion say about the Coast Guard light?

A note says the Coast Guard owns and operates an aid to navigation on the waterward end of the breakwater. The AG recommended that the state contact the Coast Guard about the deauthorization.

Background and statutory framework

The Corps built the breakwater between 1828 and 1832. The Army's 2014 letter described later abandonment under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1950, followed by the express congressional deauthorization effective December 16, 2016. The opinion applies 43 U.S.C. § 1311, Connecticut's public trust doctrine, and the federal reservation for structures built under the navigational servitude. It concludes that the state is the next logical owner of this deauthorized structure on state trust land.

Citations

• 43 U.S.C. § 1311(a), (b), and (d)
• 43 U.S.C. § 1313(c)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-15
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-93(6)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-94(b)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-359 et seq.
• Leydon v. Town of Greenwich, 257 Conn. 318 (2001)

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ag/opinions/2017/2017-04_stonington_harbor-pdf.pdf?rev=1418572270154e5da47b46fe32caec6c

Original opinion text

EY G
kr ®
4 x
GEORGE JEPSEN WALD " 55 Elm Street
ATTORNEY GENERAL vA 1 Io) RO, Box 120
QUID 4 Hartford, CT 06141-0120
QTY
Office of the Attorney General eae
State of Connecticut
May 8, 2017
The Honorable Robert J. Klee
Commissioner
State of Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Commissioner Klee:

You have asked my office for an opinion identifying the owner of a structure commonly known as the Stonington Harbor Breakwater, which is located in the Stonington Harbor adjacent to Stonington, Connecticut (the "Breakwater"). You also seek an opinion to identify the owner of the lands upon which the Breakwater rests. Determining the answers to these questions will facilitate the preservation and maintenance of the Breakwater.

We conclude that the State of Connecticut is the owner of the Breakwater and the lands on which it rests. We further conclude that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection ("DEEP") is responsible for regulating the maintenance of the Breakwater.

I. Background.

A letter and accompanying report from the Secretary of War to the U.S. House of Representatives dated February 28, 1828 (attached to this opinion as Exhibit A) indicates that the Breakwater was constructed by the federal government for the protection of the Stonington Harbor, and vessels traveling or moored within the harbor, from potential damage caused by ocean currents. The construction of the Breakwater was originally authorized by the Act of May 23,

1828 (4 Stat. 288, chapter 73). See Section 1313 of the Federal Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, Public Law No. 114-322 (attached to this opinion as Exhibit B).

Honorable Robert J. Klee
Page 2 .

A letter dated October 21, 2014 from the Department of the Army (the Department") to United States Senator Richard Blumenthal (attached to this opinion as Exhibit C), states that the Breakwater was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the time period from 1828 to 1832. The letter further states that the Breakwater was subsequently abandoned pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1950. Despite this, the Department believed it prudent that the Breakwater be specifically deauthorized by the U.S. Congress. It was the Department's opinion that once the Breakwater was so deauthorized, it would be up to the State of Connecticut (the "State") to determine the ownership of the Breakwater based on the application of appropriate state law.

Section 1313 of the Federal Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act deauthorized the Breakwater as a Federal project as of December 16, 2016, the effective date of the Act. See Exhibit B. Because the Breakwater has been deauthorized by the federal government, the question of its subsequent ownership has arisen and prompted this opinion.

I. Discussion.

Before turning to the ownership of the Breakwater itself, it is helpful first to address the ownership of the land on which the Breakwater rests. Federal law provides that it is "in the public interest that . . . title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States, and . . . the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use [those] lands," be vested in the respective states. See 43 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The federal government further releases to the states “all right, title and interest" it has in and to those lands. See 43 U.S.C. § 1311(b). Thus, under federal law, the general rule is that if land is within the navigable waters of a State's boundaries, it is owned by the State. '

The "public trust doctrine," which has its roots in both statutory and common law, provides further guidance on the issue of land ownership. In Connecticut (and elsewhere), the term “public trust doctrine" traditionally has been used to refer to the body of common law under which the State holds in trust for public use title to waters and submerged lands waterward of the mean high tide line. See Leydon v. Town of Greenwich, 257 Conn, 318, 332 n.17, 777 Ad

' pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 1312, the seaward boundary of a state's jurisdiction extends three geographical miles from its coast.

Honorable Robert J. Klee

Page 3

552 (2001). Under Connecticut statutory law, as set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 22a-15, there is a public trust in the air, water, and other natural resources of the State. Connecticut statutes also establish a "coastal boundary," which is defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-94(b) as "a continuous line delineated . . . on the seaward side by the seaward extent of the jurisdiction of the state." This shows an assumption by the legislature that the State has jurisdiction over this area (thus mirroring federal law). Further, Connecticut statutes define a "public beach" as “that portion of the shoreline held in public fee ownership by the state or that portion of the shoreline below the mean high tide elevation that is held in public trust by the state." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-93(6) (emphasis added).

Thus, the Connecticut legislature intended to place the waters of the State in public trust, to establish a boundary with regard to the coastal waters that are subject to the jurisdiction of the State, and for the State to hold in public trust the portion of the shoreline below the mean high tide line. Further, Connecticut common law provides that the State holds in trust for public use title in waters and submerged lands waterward of the mean high tide line. See Leydon, supra. Finally, federal law indicates that it is in the public interest for the states to own such lands and that the federal government has released such lands to the states. Accordingly, we conclude that the lands within the jurisdiction of the State that are located seaward of the mean high tide line are held in public trust by the State. DEEP has informed us that the land upon which the Breakwater rests is located entirely below the mean high tide line and within the State's jurisdictional boundary. Therefore, we conclude that the State holds such land in trust for public use.

Turning to the issue of the ownership of the Breakwater, while federal law addresses the concept of deauthorization of no longer viable federal navigable waterway construction projects (see, e.g. 33 U.S.C. § 579a, et seq.), the statutes provide no direct guidance regarding the practical impact of such a deauthorization. However, based upon the October 21, 2014 letter from the Department to Senator Blumenthal, it seems clear that the Department takes the position that a deauthorization means the U.S. Government no longer holds any interest in the project in question. Given the federal government's deauthorization of the Breakwater, it is necessary to determine the Breakwater's current owner.

As noted above, the federal government has released to the states all right, title and interest it has in and to lands beneath the navigable waters within the states! boundaries. See 43 U.S.C. § 1311(b). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the

Honorable Robert J. Klee

Page 4

United States specifically reserves for itself, subject to its constitutional authority, the use, development, improvement, and control of such lands and waters for the purposes of navigation and to regulate and improve navigation (among other things). See 43 U.S.C. § 1311(d).

In addition to the reservation contained in 43 U.S.C. § 1311(d), the federal government specifically excepts from state control under 43 U.S.C. § 1311 "all structures and improvements constructed by the United States in the exercise of its navigational servitude." See 43 U.S.C. §1313(c). The doctrine of navigational servitude (or navigable servitude) gives the federal government the right to regulate navigable waterways as an extension of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 197 (1824). We believe the Breakwater was constructed by the federal government in furtherance of its navigational servitude because the Breakwater's express purpose was to protect Stonington Harbor and the vessels that traveled to and from the harbor. See Exhibit A. Thus, until its deauthorization, the Breakwater was the property of the United States.

Because the federal government has abdicated its interest in the Breakwater, it is our opinion that ownership now goes to the State. As discussed above, DEEP has informed us that the Breakwater sits entirely upon lands located below the mean high tide line, which are lands held by the State in trust for the public. See Leydon, supra. Given this, and the relevant statutory and common law discussed above, the State becomes the next logical owner of the Breakwater. Further, we are aware of no statutory or other legal authority by which a municipality, other political entity or subdivision, or private party could lay claim to an ownership interest in it. No part of it rests on the land of any such entities or individuals, and no such entity or individual has ever held any ownership interest init.

Regarding the state agency responsible for managing the Breakwater, Connecticut statutes provide that DEEP shall regulate, among other things, the erection and maintenance of structures and work incidental thereto in the tidal, coastal or navigable waters of the state waterward of the coastal jurisdiction line (ie. the mean high tide line). See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-359, et seq. Thus, it is our opinion that DEEP is responsible for the regulation of the maintenance of the Breakwater.

Honorable Robert J. Klee
Page 5
IH. Conclusion.

Based upon our review of the relevant federal and state statutes, common law, and the specific facts of this matter, it is the opinion of this office that the State of Connecticut is now the owner of the Breakwater, along with the lands upon which it rests.” DEEP is the state agency charged with regulating the maintenance of the Breakwater.

]
Ver truly yours,
|
|
GEORGE JEPSEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
2 We have been informed that the United States Coast Guard owns and operates an aid to navigation (specifically a navigation light or beacon) installed on the waterward end of the Breakwater. We do not know whether the Coast Guard is aware that the Breakwater has been deauthorized by the federal government. We think it would be prudent for the State to contact the Coast Guard to discuss this situation.

aoth Covanyss, (Doe. No. 188.] ‘Ho. oF Revs,
2d Session. / War Depts
HARBOR OF STONINGTON.
eee een
BRTILER
waoM
THE SECRETARY OF WAR,
‘Putnenitting, In compliance with a resolution of the Houre of Representatives of the 97th December last, A REPORT OF A SURVEY — e THE HARBOR OF STONINGTON, WITH 4 VIEW TO : HE wRMOTIONW OF 4 STA-WALL, yOR THE ‘ PROTECTION OF SAID HARBOR, rrr enennnenenencrcemannmiaeineenanee : - i Fenrvany 25, 1828. ; Referred to the Committee on Commerce,
. .
cetera etomnrenncenanninennententints . .
WASHINGTON ¢
pRINteD BY Galzs UY SATO.
1928.
Exhibit A

(Doc. No, 453.) 3
Wan DurartTMent,
February 90, 1828.
‘Sm: In compliance with the resolution of the House of Represen- Yatives;of the 97th of December, 1827, directing the Secretary of ‘War to transmit to the Blouse the report of the officers employed for making 9 survey of thé harbor of Stonington, in Connecticut, for the purpose of ascertaining the expediency of erecting as a-wall, for the protection of that harbor, Ihave the honor to transmit, herewith,
-8 letter from ‘the Chief Engineer, accompanied with the veport called for by the resolution of the House.
. Lhayo the honor to be,
Very respectfully,
Your most obedient servant,
JAMES BARBOUR.
‘Yo the Hon. Annrew Srevenson, a .
‘Qpeaker of the House of Representatives. _
Exhibit A

(Doc, No. 453.3 5
Exorexee DeranrMent,

• . Washington, February 20, 1828,

Ben: In obedionce.to your directions, f have the honor of presents ing, herewith. a copy of the roport of the oilicer omployeds by this Department, for making a survey of the harbor of Stonington, for the purpose of ascertaining the expediency of érecting a sea-wall, for the protection of that harbor ; and am, very respectfully,

Sir, your-most obedient servant. ©
ALEX. MACOMB,-
: Maj. Gen. Chief Eng.
Yo the Hon. Jamys Banwown,
Secretary of War.
Wurmourn, (Mase.) December 1, 1827.
To Lieut. Col. Jouw Axpenson,
United States’ Topographical Engineer.

Sie: I now have the honor to make the following report, on “ the ‘examination and survey of the harbor of Stonington, Conn, for the purpose of ascertaitiing the expediency and expense of erecting a pier

for the improvement of the same ;” which examination and survey hhave been performed under your orders of 28d September last.

‘A map of the harbor und village, togethor with the plan and profiles ‘of the proposed pier, accompany this report.

Stonington Harbor is situated at tho eastern entrance to Fisker’¢ Yaad Sound ,on its northern shores and runs, inlength, wearlynorth and south, having its entrance from the south,

The eastern extremity of Fisher's island is nearly south from the harbor ; and this island stretching. westward, prevents any sca being. thrown into it from this quarter, excepting such as may be raised in

; the:sound, and this is effectually destroyed by the shoal which puts out
’ from Wamphassuck Point, the west chop of the harbor, ‘Che harbor is, therefore, secure in this direction. . Wickapisset is a small island, or, rather, collection of rocks at the eastern end of Fisher’s Island, :

Between Wickapisact and Watch Hill Point, to the east, thero is nothing which prevents the direct advance of the ocean waves into the harbor. It is from this quarter the petitioners wish to be protected;

and, i fact, the harbor can never bevery usefal without this protection.

Reference to the maps will suggest, and experience: has amply

proved, that strong south-southeast winds are accompanied by danger

to vessels lying in this harbor, ‘I'he sea, coming in from this direc-

tion almost unbroken, produces a heavy ground swell, to resist whicl Exhibit A

Ci (Doc. Wo, 1337
tho strongest gromd tackling is necessary, otherwise, vessels will be driven ashore, a : . ° -
_ In proof of the effects of south-southeast winds, { will refer you to the tide table onthe map, by which you will perceive that the south-south+ east storm, of the 19th and 20th of September, raised the tides nearly two fect above their ordinary level. - The height and magnitudeof the ‘waves were increased in propdrtion. “There ‘were: but two-or three vessels lying in the harbor at this time, and one of these, a sloop; was iviven ashore ‘she was damaged, and the re-floating of her was at- tended by considerable expense and difficulty. poe ees

This harbor is, therefore, unsafe at certain times; and, in regard to the expediency of crecting a pier to render it safe, I submit the follow- ing corisiderations: i :

ist The local advantages to be derived, by rendering this harbor secure, are unquestionable; but it isbelieved that these local advanta- ges will bo followed by public benefit, :

The population of Stonington borongh is between 900 and 1000, ant! its inhabitants are very enterprising. They have employed, dur- ing the lastecason, three vessels in the sealing trade, six in the Labra- dor fisherics, four on the banks of Newfoundland, six or eight in the coasting trade, and others in the Gulf of Moxico, South America, and in the West Indies. Two ships have beon fitted from this place for the Pacific Ocean, on whaling voyages. but the insecurity of the harbor ‘alonc has prevented the citizens from making further use of veuuels of ‘this class, . :

It is believed, trem the spirit'ant enterprise of tho inhabitants, that, 4£ their harbor were rendered safe, many more vessels ‘would-bo em ployed in different commercial pursuits 5 thereby adding to our revertue, and, ultimately, to such adegree as to wore than compensate for the coxpense of the pier. a -_ .
~ ad. "This harbor, being the only one ‘between New London, ow the west, and Newport, on the east, is advantageously situated for the-ben+ ofit of the coasting trade, but is now, in a great degree, nugatory, on ‘account ofits want of safety. - . mo,

Veosacls, from the east, bound westward, are often prevented, by com> ‘trary ‘wiids, darkness, state of tide, and other circumstances, front

i ‘attenipting the passage through the ‘Race between Fisher’s and: Gull

: {slands, when they could easily make this harbor, and be perfectly se- cure. were it defended from the ocean swell. In fact, vessels, under the above ciroumistunecs, often put into it, as it now is ; but the Jiabitity of being caught here by windsfrom the southeastto south, renders our coasters very shy ‘of it : :

By reference to the map, you will gee thatthe position of the harbor is such as to make it impossible for vessols to ‘get out of it.during the prevalence of the above winds. You willalso perceive, that there are ‘no inlets of coves in cither shore, bounding that part where vessels of Durthen can lie, which can. afford shelter.

Vessels, ‘from the westy bound eastward, are often met by northe east storms, atter having passed through the Race, and when off this

Exhibit A

[Doc, No. 158:'} v7
partiof the. coast. .'These storms: either. compel them to put back, stand. out to sea, or to make. this hv hour. Many ‘veasela, make the harbour, it being secure against northeast winds; but northeast storais often wear.round-by the south, and when they arrive S.S.E., having-a-fair. sweep over. the Atlantic, they throw. its angry waves divectly into- the’ harbor, Vessels which have sought shelter here suddenly -become exposot to imminent dangev, aud nothing can save then} but an extraordinary strength of grounc tackling. Other’ ves~ sels off this places as before stated, during northeasters, which do not make this harbor, incur tisks, or meet delays, which might be avoid. ed by rendeving:this harbor secure, -'I'here is no difficulty of access: to:this-harber ; and our coasters are now, many of them; agnorant-o£ its channel of entrance, from the exterior of Fisher’s Island, merely: Decalise they know it does wot warrant their security, if they get into it.
. From what has been-said, it may easily be imagined to what porils our navigation is exposed, for the want of ‘a pier by this harbor, Many vessels, and what is far more valuable, ves, have been lost, which might, in all probability, have been saved. Inform ow coast- ors that-it is‘a.safe larbor, and they. will soon experience and testify torits advantages, : -
. $dy Lhe tnaritime advantages to be derived from this Kaybor, in time of.war, may be very considerable. . - En proof of this, it is only necessary to adiduce the experience of the jate-war, during that period af it in which the enemy blockaded New- London, and, of course, had possession of the eastern entrance to Long Yolaud Sound, , ‘There was.noty-during this period,.a harbor, betwee New York and. Boston, so important to onr cousting trade as this; (notwithstanding its exposure to the assaulis of the-occan)its position being admirable for refuge from. the enemy. - Here our watchful cousters remained comparatively secure,’ until opportunity offeredfor them to set sail and clude the foe, - It thus gave annoyance to the enemy, atid brought upon the place the vongcance of Commedors Bardy., ‘Che result of the Commodore's attack is well known 5 le Yeing beaten off by the bravery and exertions of about twenty Ameri- bans, with onc eigliteen pound gun. This place was also attacked, durs ing he vevalution, by Captain Wallace of the Royal navy. How
! mucl its importance-and security would have been increased, by pro- tection from the ocean, it is unnecessary to mention, :

Ji may be said, that rendering this harbor secure from the ocean would intcroase its inportance to such an extent, in time of wary ag'to make it an-object of attack to tho enemy 3 and that, consequently, to teap gil its udvantages, we must give it mililary as well as naxtical security. But it has military defence sufficient in the arms and bravery of its citizens, ‘I'o use an expression of one of its defenders in the late war: Let Government pratect us {rom the ocean, and” our citizens will keep off other invaders.”

Against the above considerations, in favor of the expediency of erecting a pier for the improvement of this harbor, I knaw of no ob- Jections.. . .

Exhibit A

8 (Doe, No. 188.)

As to expense, it-is- evident, fram. what has been #aid and by ine . spection of the map, that a pier of great. strength is necessary’ to re tist violent storms, and give permanent security to the harbor. -Such a one as is projected on the map, will be'strong-and durable, and wilt form a harbor, affording protection during: south-southeast’ stormey for from filteen to eighteen vessels, drawing fifteen Feet of water, bee sides many others, drawing from. six to twelve feet of water. The Tine HL, shows the exterior limit-of protection, .

"The form of the pier is so given, as te have it angwer the purpose of a wharf, piles, or mooring. posts: being placed in it, and its internal slope being smatl, It is thought-this construction will be advanta- Beous, and thas wharfage may be charged to such vesatls as lie at it; until the additional expense is refunded. By additional expense, E niean that which is incurred by making the pier aufticiently wide at top for a wharf, when a toss width would serve merely as a breuk. water, ‘There will certainly be advantages in giving the connie. tion proposed but whether they will be sufficient to warrant the ins creased expense, in the judgment of others, 1 know not.

‘The solid. contents of the pier thus proposed, will be 44,426 perches, at 25 cubic fect per perch. : .

At the points A A. on the shore of the upper part of Lambert's Cove. there are numerous targe ledges of rocks, which can bo easily blasted to any size, and put directly into scows, and thence carried to the picr. ‘These rocks are of a fine grained, compact gneiss, mingled with coarse granite here and there. Owing to their stratification, they cau be obtained in such shapes as will make them Jay to advane tage, and imbed themselves: firmly in the battom of the piers, without any exura expense.

The nature of tho stone is such-as to render it very durable, not being liable to disintegration by thealternate actions of air and water. ‘Thus thenature and shapeof the stones will combine, th the pier, to an eminent degree, strength with durability. ‘

Ttis calculated that these stones can be obtained. and inid in the picr, for.98 cents per Perel This will give $49,204 40, tur the exe Pense of materials ant Pabor, to which add six per cent, for contin gencics, and it makes the total expense &44.787 00. [have consi«

i dered the expense of the piles beforementioned, as coming within the contingencies. . :

If this expense should be thought too great, I would propose one of tie following three modes of reduction —

Ast. By reducing the width of the pier, 50 as ta have it only twelve fort wide al tho top. its talal expense will be 89.517 00. estimated as above, Lut it must be considered that this reduction will destroy its utility ag a wharf, and convert it into a breakwater merely. This, ‘vonsidered in relation to the present state of things. is not so very important, but, in regard to the futare, it may be considered very ‘ime portant to have it combine the advantages ofa breakwater and wharé

L would here observe, that xo reduction in the height proposed cat be made.

Exhibit A

[Doc. No. 153.] 9

_ ad. It may be reduced fifty feet in length, in addition to the above reduction, and still answer a very useful purpose for tho present. Uf so reduced, its total expense will be $ $4,418 00.

. gd, It may retain its proposed width of twenty feet at the top, and Pe reduced seventy-five feet in length : its total expense would then be

87,145 00.

“Ot these three methods of reduction, I should prefer the last. Tt could then be used as a wharf’; and, as the increase of the commerce of this Hace should extend, it could, if found necessary, bo easily added 0 in length, :

But, Bhichever of the proposed plans is adopted, it cannot fail to be highly useful; yet I would bé understood to think the most enlarged ene will ultimately be the most economical.

Very respectiully, your obd’t serv’t.
J, PRESCOT,
Lieut. 1st Regt. of Artillery, on Topographical service, g Exhibit A

8612-71

(L) South 49° 44° 51” East, a distance of 149.00 feet to-an angle point of the tract herein described,

(M) South 44° 47° 21" East, a distance of 353,77 feet 2 8 point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to

e

(8) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the left having. a radius of 253.99 feet, a central angle of 98° 53' 23", a chord of South 83° 28° 61" East ~ 985.96 feet, andar are length of 458.8 feet to an ‘angle point of the tract herein described,

(0) South 75° 49” 13" Hast, a distance of 921.52 feet to, the point of beginning and containing 393.53 acres (17,142,111 square feet) of land.

SEC. 1919, STONINGTON HARBOUR, CONNECTICUT.

‘The portion of the project for navigation, Stonington Harbour, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of May $3, 1828 (4 Stat. 288, chapter 73), that consists of the inner stone breakwater that begins at coordinates N. 682,146.42, E. 121,378.69, running north 83.587 degrees west 166.79" to a point N, 682,166.05, EB, 1,231,212.94, running north 69.209 degrees west 380.89" to a point N. 682,300.25, E, 1,230,856.86, is no longer authorized as a Federal project begin- ning on the date of enactment of this Act,

SEC. 1914. RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, TEXAS, OKLAHOMA,
. "ARKANSAS, AND LOUISIANA.

‘hg portion of the project for flood contre, with respect, to the Red River below Denison Dam, ‘Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act. of 1946 (60 Siat, 647, chapter 696), consisting of the portion of the West APR ‘Levee that begins at lat. 32° 32° 50.86” N., by long, 93° 46 16.82" W., and ends at lat. 32° 31 22.79" N,, by long. 93° 45° 2.47” W., le no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 1915. GREEN RIVER AND BARREN RIVER, KENTUCKY.

(a) Iv GeNERAL—Boginning on the date of enactment of this Act, commercial navigation at the locks and dams idenlified in the’ report of the Chief of Engineers entitled “Green River Locks and Dams 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Barren River Lock and Dam 1,

Kentucky” and dated April 30, 2016, shall no longer be authorized, and the land and improvements associated with the locks and dams shall be disposed of —

‘Q) consistent with this section; and

(@) subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate in the public interest.

(b) Disposrrion —

(1) GREEN RIVER LOCK AND DAM 3—The Secretary shall convey to the Rochester Dam Regional Water Commission all Tight, title, and intorost of the United States in and to the Tand ‘associated with Green River Lock and Dam 3, located in Ohio County and Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, together ‘with any improvements on the land.

i (2) GREEN RIVER LOCK AND DAM 4.—The Sceretary shall H convey to Butler County, Kentucky, all right, title, and interest
: of the United States in and lo the land associated with Green Exhibit B

Ati DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
by ¥\ U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wey 441 G STREET, NW
\ y WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000
North Atlantic Division
Regional Integration Team
The Honorable Richard Blumenthal
United States Senate
724 Hart Senate Office Building .
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Blumenthal: : ,
This is a final response to an inquiry from Connecticut State Senator Andrew M. Maynard, dated July 16, 2014, regarding the ownership of the Old Stonington WharffBreakwater in the Town of Stonington, Connecticut. The Old Stonington Wharf/Breakwater was originally constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the period from 1828 to 1832. In the following years, various other features became part of the Stonington Harbor, Connecticut Federal Navigation Project through modifications. The Old Stonington Wharf/Breakwater was abandoned pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1950. We have completed our review of the available information and believe that the prudent path forward is to have the breakwater specifically deauthorized by Congress. At its request, we can assist Congress with development of the approriate language. Once the breakwater is deauthorized, the state of Connecticut would need to make a determination as to ownership through the application of appropriate state law. Thank you for your interest in the Corps Civil Works program. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or your staff may contact Ms. Catherine Shuman, Deputy Chief, North Atlantic Division Regional Integration :
: Team, at (202) 761-1379.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Stockton, P.E. ~
Director of Civil Works
aa Retyeod Paper
Exhibit C