## Facts

- Bay Head, a New Jersey oceanfront municipality, had no municipally owned ocean beach; most dry sand beachfront was privately owned, with substantial portions owned or controlled by the Bay Head Improvement Association (BHIA).
- BHIA, a private nonprofit association, owned six oceanfront lots and controlled additional dry sand through leases or arrangements with beachfront owners.
- BHIA operated the beachfront in summer by hiring lifeguards and staff, cleaning the beach, controlling entry, and requiring beach badges.
- BHIA restricted badge purchases and effective beach access to Bay Head residents, property owners, and their guests, excluding most nonresidents.
- Although the public had rights in the foreshore (wet sand below mean high water mark), BHIA’s control of the adjoining dry sand created a practical barrier to meaningful public access to and enjoyment of those tidal lands.
- Litigation proceeded against BHIA and certain owners after claims against the Borough of Bay Head were dismissed on the ground that the municipality did not own or control the beach.
- An individual seeking access and the State Public Advocate intervened, asserting that BHIA’s practices violated the public trust doctrine.
- Lower courts granted limited access relief but largely permitted BHIA’s resident-focused membership and badge system.

## Issues

1. Whether the public trust doctrine includes a right to reasonable access through, and use of, privately owned or privately controlled dry sand areas when necessary to enjoy public tidal lands.
2. Whether a private association operating a beach in a municipal-like manner may exclude the general public from effective beach access by restricting membership and badge sales.
3. What standard governs the extent of required public access and use of dry sand in light of competing public and private interests.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that, when reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the foreshore, the public trust doctrine extends to access through and use of privately owned or privately controlled dry sand beach areas.
- The Court concluded BHIA functioned as a quasi-public entity because it performed municipal-type beach operations and exercised effective control over access to the shoreline.
- The Court required BHIA to open membership and beach badge sales to the general public on a nondiscriminatory basis.
- The Court allowed BHIA to impose reasonable regulations and charge reasonable fees, but not to use rules or pricing as a residency-based exclusion device.
- The Court limited its ruling to the circumstances presented and did not require all privately owned beachfront property to be opened to unrestricted public use.

## Legal Principles

- The State holds tidal lands up to the mean high water mark in trust for the public, including for recreation such as bathing and swimming.
- Public trust rights can be ineffective without reasonable access; where necessary, the doctrine may require access through and use of adjoining dry sand to make public use of the foreshore feasible.
- The doctrine is not confined to municipally owned dry sand; it may reach privately controlled dry sand where control over access produces substantial public consequences.
- Whether and how much private dry sand must be available turns on reasonableness, considering factors such as proximity to the water, availability of alternative public beaches, demand, and the extent of private property interests.
- Entities operating shoreline access in a manner comparable to a municipality may be treated as quasi-public for purposes of public trust obligations and may be required to provide nondiscriminatory public access.

## Conclusion

The court applied the public trust doctrine to require meaningful public access to tidal lands by ordering a quasi-public beach association that controlled the only practical shoreline access to open its beach badge and membership system to the general public, subject to reasonable fees and regulations.


Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 471 A.2d 355 (N.J. 1984)