The question concerns the application of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 to states that do not have a federally recognized coastline, such as South Dakota. The Submerged Lands Act grants states ownership of submerged lands within their boundaries. However, South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess any ocean or coastal submerged lands as defined by the Act, which pertains to lands seaward of the coastline. Therefore, any claim to submerged lands under the Submerged Lands Act would be inapplicable to South Dakota. The concept of navigable waters within a landlocked state is governed by different federal and state laws, such as the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state-specific water rights laws, but not the Submerged Lands Act. The Act’s provisions are specifically tied to the territorial sea and seaward boundaries of coastal states.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess any ocean or coastal territory. Therefore, South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law does not exist as a distinct legal framework within the state’s jurisdiction. Laws pertaining to ocean and coastal management, resource utilization, and environmental protection are applicable to states that have coastlines bordering oceans or major seas. For instance, states like California, Florida, or Maine would have specific legislation addressing issues such as the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, or state-specific marine resource regulations. The concept of “South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law” is a misnomer as the state’s geography precludes any such legal domain. The question tests the fundamental understanding that the applicability of ocean and coastal law is geographically determined and that landlocked states do not engage with this area of law.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not have direct ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, its engagement with ocean and coastal law is primarily through federal legislation that applies nationwide or through agreements and compacts with states that do possess coastal resources. The primary federal law governing coastal zone management in the United States is the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. This act encourages states to develop comprehensive programs for coastal land and water use. While South Dakota is not a coastal state, it may participate in or be affected by federal programs that involve interstate water resources that eventually flow to the ocean, or through participation in national initiatives related to environmental protection that have coastal implications. For instance, if South Dakota were involved in a watershed management plan that significantly impacted a river system flowing to the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, it might indirectly engage with principles of coastal zone management. However, the direct application of South Dakota law to ocean or coastal matters is non-existent due to its geography. The question tests the understanding that while federal law sets the framework for coastal management, state participation and the applicability of such laws are geographically contingent. South Dakota’s lack of a coastline means it does not implement a state-specific coastal management program under the CZMA. Its role, if any, would be indirect and supportive, or through participation in broader federal environmental initiatives.

The scenario describes a situation involving a potential violation of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) by a federal agency undertaking a project within a designated coastal zone. The CZMA, as implemented through federal regulations and state-approved management programs, requires federal agencies to be consistent with state coastal management programs to the maximum extent practicable for all federal activities that affect land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone. South Dakota, while landlocked, has enacted legislation to manage its extensive Great Lakes shoreline, which is recognized under federal law as a component of the national coastal zone due to its significant ecological and economic importance. The core principle is ensuring federal actions do not undermine state-level coastal management goals, which in South Dakota’s case, focus on lakefront development, water quality, and recreational access. If a federal agency fails to demonstrate this consistency, the state’s coastal management authority can seek remedies. The question tests the understanding of the federal consistency requirement under CZMA and the potential consequences of non-compliance. The correct answer reflects the legal mechanism available to a state to address such a failure, which is typically through a formal dispute resolution process or a legal challenge to compel compliance.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not have direct ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, its involvement in “Ocean and Coastal Law” is primarily through federal legislation that extends certain regulatory frameworks to all states, or through interstate compacts and agreements that might indirectly affect water resources or environmental management, even if those resources are not coastal. The question tests the understanding of how federal laws, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), are applied or how states without coastlines might participate in or be affected by coastal management principles. Since South Dakota does not possess a coastline, it is not eligible to directly receive CZMA grants for developing or implementing a coastal management program under Section 306 of the CZMA. However, the CZMA’s national policy objectives, including the protection of natural resources, promotion of orderly development, and the consideration of national interests, can still influence state environmental policies and land use planning, particularly concerning navigable waterways and water quality, which are relevant to South Dakota’s management of the Missouri River. The question probes the fundamental understanding that direct participation in federal coastal management programs is contingent on having a coastline.

The question concerns the regulatory framework for offshore renewable energy development, specifically focusing on the interplay between federal and state authority in managing submerged lands and their resources. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953 is the foundational federal law governing the exploration, development, and management of mineral and energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess sovereign submerged lands in the traditional sense of coastal states. Therefore, the concept of South Dakota asserting jurisdiction over submerged lands for ocean and coastal law purposes is inapplicable. The question tests the understanding that South Dakota’s legal framework for ocean and coastal law is not derived from direct ownership or jurisdiction over offshore submerged lands, but rather through its participation in interstate compacts or federal programs that might indirectly affect its interests or through its role in the broader national approach to coastal zone management, if any such involvement were established. However, the core principle is that South Dakota does not have direct, sovereign jurisdiction over any ocean or coastal submerged lands. The relevant legal principle is that states’ jurisdiction over submerged lands extends to their historical boundaries, typically three nautical miles from the coastline, with federal jurisdiction commencing beyond that. Since South Dakota has no coastline, it falls outside this jurisdictional paradigm.

The question pertains to the application of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to non-federal activities within a state’s coastal zone that have potential effects on coastal uses or resources. South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not have a coastline in the traditional sense, and therefore does not have a federally approved coastal management program under the CZMA. The CZMA’s consistency review requirement (Section 307) applies to federal agency actions and to non-federal activities requiring a federal permit or license that are found to be “directly affecting” the coastal zone. Since South Dakota does not have a designated coastal zone managed under the CZMA, and its activities are not located within or directly affecting a coastal zone of another state that does have such a program, the consistency requirements of the CZMA are not triggered. The core of CZMA consistency is its application to activities within or affecting a state’s *approved* coastal management program. Without an approved program, or an activity directly impacting a state that *does* have one, the CZMA’s consistency provisions do not mandate review. Therefore, any proposed development by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks on state lands, even if it involves water bodies, would not be subject to CZMA consistency review unless it were part of a larger project requiring federal authorization that directly impacts a federally approved coastal zone of another state. The key is the nexus to a federally approved coastal zone and the requirement for federal authorization.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess direct ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, its engagement with ocean and coastal law is primarily through its participation in federal programs and its role in managing interstate waters that may eventually connect to the ocean. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides a framework for states to manage their coastal resources. While South Dakota does not have a “coastal zone” in the traditional sense, it can participate in CZMA programs through its interest in managing its portion of the Missouri River, which is a tributary to the Mississippi River, which in turn flows to the Gulf of Mexico. This participation often involves adopting policies consistent with national coastal management goals, particularly concerning non-point source pollution control and watershed management that can impact downstream water quality. The concept of “federal consistency” under CZMA requires federal agencies undertaking activities in or affecting the coastal zone to be consistent with approved state management programs. For a landlocked state like South Dakota, this might translate to ensuring its water quality management plans, particularly those affecting the Missouri River basin, align with federal objectives to protect coastal ecosystems from pollution originating inland. The state’s involvement would likely be through cooperative agreements and grant programs, rather than direct regulatory authority over a coastal zone. The key is the recognition that inland activities can have significant downstream impacts on coastal environments.

The scenario involves a coastal development project in a state that, like South Dakota, does not have a coastline. However, the principles of coastal zone management, as established by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and implemented through state programs, are relevant. The CZMA encourages states to develop comprehensive management programs to protect coastal resources. While South Dakota itself is landlocked, it may participate in federal programs or adopt principles that mirror those found in coastal states, particularly concerning water resource management, environmental protection, and intergovernmental coordination. The question probes the understanding of how federal mandates, like the CZMA, can influence landlocked states’ environmental policies, even if indirectly. The key is recognizing that federal environmental legislation often has broad applicability and can establish standards or frameworks that states, regardless of their geography, may need to consider for consistency or to access federal funding or programs. The principle of federalism in environmental law means that federal statutes can set minimum standards or provide incentives for state action. In this context, a landlocked state might adopt elements of coastal zone management principles for its Great Lakes or riverine environments, or for purposes of consistency with federal environmental goals. The question is designed to test the awareness that federal environmental law is not strictly confined by geographical boundaries and can have ripple effects.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not have direct ocean or coastal boundaries. Therefore, its jurisdiction over ocean and coastal law is primarily derived through its participation in interstate compacts or federal programs that extend regulatory authority or involve shared resource management. The concept of “ocean and coastal law” for South Dakota would thus be interpreted through its engagement with federal legislation like the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and any associated state-level implementation plans or agreements with coastal states. The CZMA, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides grants and technical assistance to coastal states and territories to develop and implement comprehensive management programs for their coastal zones. While South Dakota itself is not a coastal state, it could potentially be involved in programs related to interstate water resource management that have implications for coastal areas, or it might have an interest in federal policies affecting national waterways that connect to the ocean. However, direct regulatory authority over ocean or coastal waters, as understood in states like California or Florida, is absent. The question tests the understanding that even landlocked states can have a legal nexus to ocean and coastal law through federal frameworks and interstate cooperation, albeit indirectly. The key is recognizing that South Dakota’s involvement would be through participation in broader federal programs or agreements, not through direct territorial jurisdiction. The absence of a coastline means that any legal framework applied would be a derivative or participatory one, rather than a primary jurisdictional one.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess direct ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, any legal framework or examination pertaining to “South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law” would necessarily be hypothetical or relate to the state’s engagement with federal ocean and coastal management policies, or its role in interstate compacts or agreements that might indirectly touch upon coastal issues, perhaps concerning water resource management that flows to coastal areas or participation in national programs. However, the premise of a “South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law Exam” implies a focus on understanding the principles of ocean and coastal law as they might be applied or considered by a state that is not geographically coastal. This could involve understanding federal laws like the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and how non-coastal states might interact with or be affected by its provisions, or how principles of riparian rights and navigable waters, as applied to South Dakota’s internal waterways, might draw parallels to broader coastal law concepts. The question assesses the understanding of this fundamental geographical reality and its implications for legal applicability. Given South Dakota’s landlocked status, the direct application of ocean and coastal law within its own jurisdiction is nonexistent. Consequently, any examination of such laws would be theoretical, focusing on principles, federal frameworks, or interstate agreements that might have indirect relevance. The core concept is the absence of a physical coastline, which negates direct jurisdictional authority over ocean or coastal zones.

South Dakota, despite being a landlocked state, can be involved in ocean and coastal law through various indirect mechanisms and federal preemption principles. One significant area is the regulation of activities that impact navigable waters, even those originating inland, which may eventually connect to the ocean. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress broad authority over interstate and foreign commerce, including navigable waterways. Federal laws like the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, administered by agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), establish federal jurisdiction over waters that are, or could be, used for commerce, including those connected to the ocean. Therefore, if an activity in South Dakota, such as the discharge of pollutants into a river system that eventually flows into the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce or water quality downstream, federal ocean and coastal laws, and the regulatory frameworks they establish, could be implicated. This involves understanding the concept of “navigable waters of the United States” as defined by federal law, which often extends far upstream from the coast. The legal basis for this connection lies in the broad interpretation of federal power to regulate activities affecting interstate commerce and the environment.

The scenario involves a dispute over coastal land use in South Dakota, which is landlocked. South Dakota does not have a coastline, as it is a landlocked state. Therefore, any laws or regulations pertaining to “Ocean and Coastal Law” would not be applicable within its geographical boundaries. The concept of ocean and coastal law is intrinsically tied to the presence of a coastline, territorial waters, and the specific legal frameworks established by international and national maritime law that govern these areas. These frameworks, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in the United States, are designed to manage resources, navigation, and environmental protection in marine and estuarine environments. Since South Dakota lacks these physical attributes, it cannot enact or enforce “Ocean and Coastal Law” within its territory. Any attempt to apply such laws would be legally void due to the absence of jurisdiction over coastal areas. The question tests the fundamental understanding that ocean and coastal law is geographically specific and requires a coastal or maritime boundary.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess direct ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, its involvement in “Ocean and Coastal Law” is primarily indirect, stemming from federal legislation that may have implications for states regardless of their geographical proximity to the coast. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, for instance, establishes a framework for states to develop comprehensive management programs for their coastal zones. While South Dakota does not have a “coastal zone” in the traditional sense, it can participate in federal programs related to water resource management, non-point source pollution control, and potentially in initiatives that aim to protect estuaries or watersheds that eventually drain into coastal waters. The concept of “navigable waters” under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution can extend federal authority to inland waterways, which might indirectly link South Dakota’s water management practices to broader federal environmental regulations that also govern coastal areas. However, South Dakota’s participation would be voluntary and likely focused on aligning its own environmental protection efforts with national standards, rather than directly managing a coastal zone. The state’s authority over its internal waters, such as the Missouri River, is governed by state law and federal laws pertaining to interstate waters and navigable waterways, but these are distinct from the specific regulatory regimes established for coastal zones under the CZMA. The absence of a coastline means South Dakota does not engage in the direct implementation or enforcement of coastal zone management plans as envisioned by the CZMA for states with coastlines. Its engagement would be through cooperative federalism models, potentially related to watershed protection that impacts downstream coastal environments.

The question probes the understanding of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its application to states without direct ocean coastlines but with significant Great Lakes shorelines, such as South Dakota’s historical context of managing its extensive Missouri River shoreline. The CZMA, enacted in 1972, provides a framework for states to manage their coastal resources. While the term “ocean” is prominent, the Act’s definition of “coastal zone” has been interpreted to include Great Lakes shorelines, recognizing their ecological and economic importance and the need for coordinated management. South Dakota, despite its landlocked status, historically managed significant portions of the Missouri River system, which, in terms of resource management challenges and public access considerations, shares conceptual similarities with coastal zone management. The key is that the CZMA’s principles of resource protection, public access, and coordinated planning are applicable to states with extensive large lake or river shorelines that face similar environmental pressures and require comprehensive management strategies, even if not directly bordering the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, the application of CZMA principles, even without direct federal CZMA program approval for its Great Lakes shoreline (if applicable), or in a historical context of managing its major river systems, aligns with the spirit and intent of the Act’s resource management objectives. The correct understanding is that the CZMA’s management philosophy can inform and be applied to the stewardship of extensive inland water bodies that exhibit coastal-like characteristics and management needs, reflecting a broader interpretation of “coastal” in a resource management context.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess any ocean or coastal territory. Therefore, South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law Exam is a misnomer. The legal framework governing ocean and coastal areas in the United States is primarily established by federal law, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and then implemented through state-specific legislation and regulations for states that do have coastlines. For instance, states like California, Florida, or Maine have extensive bodies of law dedicated to managing their coastal zones, addressing issues like shoreline erosion, marine resource protection, land use planning, and public access. These state laws often incorporate federal CZMA guidelines but are tailored to the unique environmental and economic characteristics of their specific coastlines. Because South Dakota has no coastline, there is no specific body of “South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law” that would be tested. The closest relevant legal concepts might pertain to water rights and management of navigable waterways within the state, but these are distinct from ocean and coastal law.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess any ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, the concept of “South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law” is not applicable in the traditional sense. Laws pertaining to ocean and coastal management are enacted and enforced by states with coastlines, such as California, Florida, or Maine, under federal frameworks like the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). These laws typically address issues such as shoreline protection, marine resource management, offshore energy development, and navigation. Since South Dakota has no coastline, it does not have specific statutes or regulations governing these areas. Any legal framework that might indirectly touch upon water resources in South Dakota would fall under general environmental law, water rights law, or interstate water compacts, but not ocean and coastal law.

South Dakota, despite its landlocked status, participates in federal coastal management programs through its affiliation with states that do have coastlines and by adhering to federal mandates that can influence internal water resource management. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, provides for the protection of natural resources, economic development, and public access along the nation’s coastal zones. While South Dakota does not have a direct ocean coastline, its participation in programs related to interstate water management, such as those involving the Missouri River and its tributaries, can be influenced by federal directives that stem from coastal zone management principles, particularly concerning water quality, watershed protection, and nonpoint source pollution control. These federal programs often encourage a holistic approach to water resource management that extends beyond the immediate coastal areas to protect the overall health of larger water systems, which can include major river basins that flow towards coastal waters. Therefore, understanding the principles of federal consistency, as outlined in Section 307 of the CZMA, becomes relevant. Federal consistency requires that federal actions within or affecting the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of approved state coastal management programs. While South Dakota does not have its own CZMA-approved program, federal agencies operating in the state that might impact water bodies flowing to coastal areas must consider the broader federal goals of coastal zone management, which are designed to protect the ecological and economic integrity of coastal resources. This indirect influence means that South Dakota’s environmental regulations and water management practices, particularly those concerning major waterways like the Missouri River, may need to align with federal objectives to avoid potential conflicts or to leverage federal funding and support for environmental initiatives that have downstream benefits for coastal states. The concept of “coastal zone” under the CZMA can also be interpreted broadly to include areas that significantly affect coastal waters.

The South Dakota v. Bourgeois case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, addressed the application of federal environmental laws, specifically the Clean Water Act (CWA), to activities occurring within the territorial sea. The central issue revolved around whether the CWA’s permitting requirements, particularly for the discharge of pollutants, extended to activities conducted by private entities in waters beyond the ordinary high-water mark but within the United States’ territorial sea. The Court analyzed the scope of federal jurisdiction over the territorial sea, which extends three nautical miles from the coast. The ruling clarified that the CWA’s definition of “navigable waters” and its regulatory framework are indeed applicable to discharges occurring within this zone. This means that any discharge of a pollutant from a point source into the territorial sea, without a permit issued under Section 402 of the CWA, would be a violation. The case underscored the federal government’s authority to regulate activities impacting the marine environment within the territorial sea, reinforcing the reach of federal environmental statutes in offshore areas adjacent to U.S. coastlines. This principle is fundamental to understanding the regulatory landscape for any development or activity impacting coastal waters under federal jurisdiction.

The South Dakota v. Bourgeois case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, significantly clarified the scope of state authority over submerged lands and the definition of navigable waters for purposes of federal jurisdiction under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. The core issue revolved around whether the definition of “navigable waters” as used in the Submerged Lands Act incorporated the federal test for navigability as it existed at the time of statehood, or if it was intended to be a broader, more encompassing federal standard that could evolve. The Court analyzed the legislative history and statutory language of the Submerged Lands Act. It concluded that the Act adopted the federal navigational servitude test for defining the extent of state ownership of submerged lands. This test, established in cases like The Daniel Ball, defines navigable waters as those that are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their natural condition, as highways for commerce, over which interstate or foreign commerce is or may be carried. The Court found that the phrase “navigable waters of the United States” in the Act referred to this federal standard. Therefore, states’ title to submerged lands extended only to the mean high-water mark of waters that met this federal test of navigability, not merely to waters that were navigable under state law or common law definitions. This ruling confirmed that federal law, specifically the federal definition of navigability, dictates the boundaries of state ownership of submerged lands under the Submerged Lands Act, impacting coastal states’ jurisdiction.

The South Dakota v. Bourgeois decision, while not directly about ocean and coastal law as South Dakota is a landlocked state, established important principles regarding state sovereignty and the definition of navigable waters. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that states have the authority to determine the navigability of their internal waters, which has implications for how states manage their resources, including potential coastal zones if they had them. The ruling clarified that a waterway’s navigability is a question of fact, and a state’s determination is entitled to deference. This principle is relevant to coastal law because states have primary jurisdiction over their territorial seas and internal waters, and the definition of these areas, including their boundaries and navigability, is crucial for resource management, permitting, and regulatory authority. For instance, a state’s determination of whether a particular inlet or estuary is navigable can impact the application of federal laws like the Clean Water Act or state-specific coastal zone management programs. The case underscored the importance of state-level adjudication of water rights and resource control, a foundational element in any state’s approach to managing its unique aquatic environments, even if South Dakota’s context is internal rivers and lakes rather than oceans. The core takeaway is the state’s inherent authority to define and manage its water resources, a concept that underpins the entire framework of ocean and coastal law, where states define their boundaries and regulatory reach.

The South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law Exam, despite its name, often delves into federal frameworks and interstate compacts that govern coastal management, even for landlocked states that might have interests in navigable waterways or federal funding related to water resources. The question tests understanding of how federal legislation, specifically the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), influences state-level water resource management, even in states not directly bordering an ocean. The CZMA establishes a framework for states to develop comprehensive management programs for their coastal zones, which are approved and funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These programs must consider a range of factors, including economic development, environmental protection, and public access. While South Dakota does not have a coastline, its participation in federal environmental programs, its management of major navigable rivers like the Missouri River, and its potential involvement in interstate water allocation agreements mean that principles of coastal zone management, particularly concerning nonpoint source pollution control and watershed management, can be relevant. The CZMA’s emphasis on consistency review for federal actions affecting the coastal zone, and its provisions for public participation and intergovernmental coordination, are foundational concepts that can be applied analogously to large-scale water management initiatives in any state. Therefore, understanding the CZMA’s role in setting national standards and providing a template for state action is crucial.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not have direct ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, its engagement with ocean and coastal law primarily stems from its participation in interstate and federal programs aimed at managing and conserving coastal resources, often through cooperative agreements and the application of federal statutes that extend to all states. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, for instance, establishes a framework for states to develop comprehensive management programs for their coastal zones. While South Dakota does not possess a traditional coastline, it can be involved in initiatives related to watershed management that ultimately impact coastal waters, or in the transportation of goods via navigable waterways that connect to the ocean. Understanding the principles of federalism in environmental law is crucial, as federal mandates often shape state-level environmental policy, even for landlocked states. The concept of “national interest” in coastal resources, as articulated in the CZMA, can extend to inland states through various mechanisms, such as funding for conservation efforts or participation in national data collection and research programs. The question tests the understanding of how a landlocked state, like South Dakota, might engage with or be affected by federal ocean and coastal law, despite lacking a physical coastline. This engagement is typically indirect, focusing on shared environmental concerns and federal regulatory reach.

The South Dakota Ocean and Coastal Law Exam, despite the state’s landlocked geography, focuses on the legal frameworks governing coastal zones, marine resources, and related environmental issues, often drawing parallels and applying principles from federal statutes and interstate compacts that impact all U.S. states with coastlines. A key area of study involves the management of submerged lands and the rights associated with their use, particularly concerning resource extraction and public access. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 is foundational, granting states ownership of submerged lands within their boundaries, extending three nautical miles from the coastline (or further in the case of Texas and the Gulf Coast). This ownership includes the seabed and the resources therein, such as oil, gas, and minerals. However, this ownership is not absolute; it is held in trust for the benefit of the public, a concept rooted in the public trust doctrine. This doctrine asserts that certain natural resources, like navigable waters and their beds, are held by the government in trust for the use and enjoyment of the public. Therefore, any state management or disposition of these lands must be consistent with this public trust obligation. For instance, a state’s leasing of submerged lands for oil and gas exploration must consider potential impacts on navigation, fishing, and recreational uses, all of which are public trust uses. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953, conversely, governs the exploration and development of natural resources on the outer continental shelf, which lies seaward of the states’ three-mile (or nine-mile) territorial sea, and explicitly states that this area is under federal jurisdiction. Understanding the delineation between state and federal waters is therefore crucial for determining which legal regime applies to resource development and management activities. The question tests the understanding of this jurisdictional boundary and the nature of state ownership of submerged lands.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not possess direct ocean or coastal territories. Therefore, its engagement with ocean and coastal law is primarily through federal legislation that extends certain protections and regulatory frameworks to all states, or through agreements and cooperative efforts with coastal states or federal agencies concerning issues that might indirectly affect the state, such as interstate water resource management or the impact of national environmental policies. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, for instance, establishes a framework for states to manage their coastal zones. While South Dakota does not have a coastal zone in the traditional sense, the principles of federalism and the reach of federal environmental law mean that states not directly bordering the ocean can still be involved in or affected by national coastal policies. For example, federal laws concerning navigable waters, pollution control, and endangered species can have implications that ripple inland. The question tests the understanding that while South Dakota lacks a physical coastline, its legal framework can still be influenced by federal ocean and coastal management acts through indirect application or cooperative agreements. The key is recognizing that federal statutes often have broader applicability than just the immediate geographic areas they seem to target, especially in environmental law.

South Dakota, despite being a landlocked state, participates in ocean and coastal law through its role in interstate water management and its potential involvement in federally regulated activities that may impact navigable waters or coastal zones indirectly. The concept of “navigable waters” under federal law, particularly the Clean Water Act, is crucial here. Navigable waters are defined as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” While South Dakota does not have a coastline, its rivers and lakes are part of the larger hydrological system that eventually connects to the ocean. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over navigable waters and wetlands adjacent to them. Interstate compacts and agreements, such as those governing the Missouri River Basin, also involve South Dakota in water resource management that has downstream effects on coastal areas. Furthermore, federal laws like the Coastal Zone Management Act, while primarily focused on coastal states, can have implications for upstream activities that affect water quality and quantity in coastal zones. For instance, pollution originating in South Dakota could eventually reach coastal waters, triggering regulatory responses under federal environmental statutes that have a bearing on the state’s responsibilities, even if indirect. The question tests the understanding that state participation in ocean and coastal law is not solely limited to states with physical coastlines but extends to any state whose water management practices can impact federally regulated coastal resources. This often involves understanding federal preemption, interstate compacts, and the broad definition of “waters of the United States.”

The question probes the understanding of how South Dakota, a landlocked state, might engage with and regulate activities that could have downstream or indirect impacts on coastal zones or ocean resources, particularly concerning federal mandates and interstate compacts. While South Dakota does not have a coastline, federal laws like the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) encourage all states to participate in coastal zone management planning and implementation, even if their direct involvement is through non-adjacent means. This participation often involves addressing water quality, nonpoint source pollution, and habitat protection that can affect downstream or distant coastal ecosystems. The CZMA, for instance, allows for federal consistency review of federal actions and development affecting the coastal zone, and states can be involved in this process. Furthermore, interstate agreements or compacts, often facilitated by federal legislation or funding, can create frameworks for managing shared resources that extend to coastal areas. South Dakota’s role would likely be in managing its internal waterways and land use practices that contribute to the overall health of river systems flowing towards coastal waters, adhering to EPA regulations under acts like the Clean Water Act, and potentially participating in regional planning initiatives that have coastal implications. The key is recognizing that coastal law is not solely about direct adjacency but also about interconnectedness of water systems and broader environmental stewardship encouraged by federal policy.

The question concerns the application of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to non-federal actions within a state’s approved coastal management program. South Dakota, despite its landlocked status, has an interest in coastal zone management principles through its participation in federal programs that address water quality and watershed management, which can have downstream impacts on coastal areas. The CZMA’s Section 307 requires federal agencies to be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved state coastal management programs when undertaking or supporting activities within the coastal zone. This consistency requirement extends to federal licenses and permits. When a federal agency proposes an action that affects a state’s coastal zone, and that state has an approved program, the federal agency must ensure its action is consistent with the program’s objectives and policies. For instance, if a federal agency were to permit a development project in a watershed that eventually drains into a coastal area, and South Dakota’s program (or a program of a state with a shared watershed) had specific water quality standards or land use controls relevant to that project’s impact on coastal waters, the federal agency would need to ensure consistency. The key is that the federal action must be reviewed against the state’s approved program, not just general environmental laws. The federal agency has the primary responsibility to determine consistency, though the state plays a crucial role in reviewing and objecting to proposed federal actions if they are deemed inconsistent.

South Dakota, being a landlocked state, does not have direct ocean or coastal jurisdiction. Therefore, any legal framework concerning “ocean and coastal law” would primarily arise from federal statutes that extend to all U.S. states, or from interstate compacts or agreements if South Dakota were to engage in such arrangements related to navigable waterways that might eventually connect to coastal areas. The primary federal legislation governing coastal zones is the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). While South Dakota is not a coastal state, it can be affected by federal environmental regulations that apply nationwide, including those related to water quality and pollution control that originate inland but impact downstream coastal environments. The question probes the understanding that South Dakota’s involvement in such legal domains would be indirect, relying on federal authority or voluntary participation in broader environmental management initiatives that acknowledge the interconnectedness of inland and coastal water systems. The concept of federal preemption in areas of national concern, such as environmental protection, is relevant here. States that do not have a coastline are not subject to the direct regulatory framework of the CZMA for their own internal waters unless they voluntarily choose to participate in programs that align with federal coastal objectives or are subject to federal environmental laws that have nationwide applicability.

The question concerns the application of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to a hypothetical situation involving federal consistency review for a proposed offshore wind energy project off the coast of a state that has an approved CZMA program. The core principle of federal consistency under the CZMA, as articulated in 44 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(2)(A), requires that any federal agency undertaking or supporting any activity, or issuing any permit for any activity, that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of a state shall conduct or support that activity in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the enforceable policies of the approved program. In this scenario, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is issuing a permit for the construction of an offshore wind farm, which is an activity that clearly affects the coastal zone. The state of Delaware, for the purpose of this example, has an approved CZMA program. Therefore, the USACE permit issuance must be consistent with Delaware’s enforceable policies. The question asks about the standard the USACE must adhere to. The CZMA mandates that the activity be consistent “to the maximum extent practicable” with the state’s approved coastal management program. This standard means that the federal agency must make a good faith effort to comply with the state’s policies, but it does not require absolute compliance if it is demonstrably impracticable. The agency must explain any instances where full consistency is not achieved and the reasons for that impracticability. This is distinct from a “substantial” consistency standard or a requirement for absolute adherence without any consideration of feasibility. The concept of “maximum extent practicable” is a key nuance in federal consistency reviews, balancing federal interests and state management authority.