Legislative bill to amend the definition of the maritime-terrestrial zone prioritizes private interests over the public interest

San Juan, P.R. - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Puerto Rico expressed its opposition to House Bill 25, which seeks to amend the definition of the maritime-terrestrial zone, after concluding that the legislative proposal disproportionately favors private interests over the public interest, even though the protection of the archipelago’s natural resources is constitutionally mandated.

“Extending the reach of private ownership inland from the maritime-terrestrial zone, thereby reducing the space belonging to the public domain, is not compatible with our constitutional principle of the most effective conservation, development, and use of our natural resources; rather, it directly undermines it,” emphasized attorney Lolimar Rodríguez Escudero, the organization’s Public Policy Counsel.

“Puerto Rico needs to strengthen its coastal assets based on scientific evidence and a long-term vision, not reduce their protection to benefit private interests,” the attorney stated in the explanatory memorandum submitted by the ACLU of Puerto Rico on March 17 to the Senate Committee on Tourism, Natural and Environmental Resources, which is evaluating the measure.

House Bill 25 was introduced on January 2, 2025, just at the start of the current four-year legislative term. The ACLU of Puerto Rico had already submitted its analysis and opposition to this measure before the House, which passed the bill on January 27 of this year. Although the measure was approved with amendments, after evaluating those changes, the ACLU of Puerto Rico concluded that the amended bill does not address the compelling reasons why it does not recommend its approval.

In its analysis, the organization recalled that, in Puerto Rico, the protection of natural resources is of constitutional rank and that the Constitution provides that “it shall be the public policy of the Commonwealth to provide for the most effective conservation of its natural resources, as well as for the greatest development and utilization thereof for the general welfare of the community.”

The ACLU of Puerto Rico emphasized that this provision imposes on the State the obligation to protect assets such as the maritime-terrestrial zone, which, because of their ecological, economic, and social value, constitute the collective heritage of the Puerto Rican people. “In accordance with these constitutional duties, the ACLU of Puerto Rico does not support House Bill 25, because it believes the measure places this constitutional duty in a secondary position relative to the protection of property rights without an adequate balance,” Rodríguez Escudero stated.

Measure does not consider scientific evidence

The document submitted to the Senate committee recalled that the archipelago is facing an unprecedented environmental crisis, with accelerated coastal erosion, sea-level rise, extreme wave events, and loss of critical habitats such as mangroves and dunes, which serve as natural barriers during extreme weather events such as Hurricane Maria in 2017.

In light of that reality, the organization stressed that House Bill 25 does not respond with a legislative proposal grounded in scientific evidence to redefine the maritime-terrestrial zone in a way that harmonizes it with constitutional principles of conservation and adapts it to current environmental realities, such as coastal erosion and climate change.

“The bill proposes to address property rights by amending the definition of a constitutionally protected natural resource,” the analysis states. The ACLU of Puerto Rico maintained that the reality is not in dispute that the current definition of the maritime-terrestrial zone comes from a nineteenth-century law tied to Spain’s 1880 Ports Act.

“It is clear that the definition of the maritime-terrestrial zone must be amended to reflect Puerto Rico’s physical realities, but amending that definition requires the participation of experts and scientists in order to produce a definition that is applicable to our land and responsive to the global climate reality we face,” the organization noted in its analysis.

A bill that reduces environmental protections

By redefining the maritime-terrestrial zone, House Bill 25 seeks to reduce the 50-meter rescue and surveillance zone to 20 meters, while also excluding criteria such as storm surge. This would weaken protection of the maritime-terrestrial zone, because it weakens the protection of public coastal lands and could significantly reduce the areas considered part of the public domain.

“For example, it reduces environmental protection in sensitive areas such as the mangroves of La Parguera, ecosystems that are essential to Puerto Rico’s biodiversity and environmental stability,” the ACLU of Puerto Rico warned.

On the other hand, this new definition could make it easier to advance private claims over lands that previously fell clearly within the maritime-terrestrial zone. Moreover, the organization warned, the proposed definition would exacerbate existing conflicts between public and private use, because it does not include mechanisms to protect “traditional enjoyment.”

The ACLU acknowledged that the law does allow certain concessions for the private use of public-domain assets by natural and legal persons, but warned that such matters are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and “are not addressed by amending the definition of a natural resource protected by the Constitution.”