ACLU of Puerto Rico challenges bill redefining coastal maritime zone.

According to the ACLU, constitutional mandates obligate the state to safeguard public assets.

Presents findings to Senate committee evaluating House Bill 25

By THE STAR STAFF

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Puerto Rico has formally expressed its opposition to House Bill 25 (HB 25), legislation that seeks to amend the definition of Puerto Rico’s coastal maritime zone. The organization argued that the proposed changes disproportionately favor private interests over the public good, despite the constitutionally protected status of the archipelago’s natural resources.

“Extending private domain further inland into the maritime-terrestrial zone, thereby reducing the scope of public domain, is incompatible with our constitutional principle of the most effective conservation, development, and use of natural resources. It directly undermines it,” said attorney Lolimar Rodríguez Escudero, the ACLU’s Public Policy Counsel.

“Puerto Rico needs to strengthen its coastal assets based on scientific evidence and a long-term vision, not weaken environmental protections for the benefit of private interests,” Rodríguez Escudero added in the organization’s explanatory statement submitted on March 17 to the Senate Committee on Tourism, Natural Resources, and the Environment, which is evaluating the measure.

HB 25 was filed on January 2, 2025, at the start of the current legislative session. The ACLU had already presented its analysis and objections to the House of Representatives before the chamber approved the bill, with amendments, on January 27. After reviewing the revisions, the ACLU concluded that the amended bill still fails to address the organization’s fundamental concerns.

The organization emphasized that Puerto Rico’s Constitution explicitly establishes the protection of natural resources as a matter of public policy, stating that the government must ensure “the most effective conservation of its natural resources, as well as the greatest development and use of them for the general benefit of the community.”

According to the ACLU, this constitutional mandate obligates the state to safeguard public assets like the maritime-terrestrial zone, which holds significant ecological, economic, and social value as part of the collective heritage of the Puerto Rican people. “HB 25 places this constitutional duty on a secondary plane, prioritizing property rights without a proper balance,” Rodríguez Escudero argued.

In its analysis, the ACLU noted that Puerto Rico is facing an unprecedented environmental crisis—accelerated coastal erosion, rising sea levels, extreme wave events, and the loss of critical habitats such as mangroves and dunes, which act as natural buffers during severe weather, as seen after Hurricane María in 2017.

Despite these realities, the organization said HB 25 does not present a scientifically grounded approach to redefining the maritime-terrestrial zone. Instead of adapting the definition to current climate conditions and constitutional conservation principles, the bill focuses on addressing private property concerns.

The ACLU acknowledged the longstanding issue that the current definition is tied to the 1880 Spanish Ports Law. However, it stressed that any revision must be guided by scientific experts to ensure a definition suited to Puerto Rico’s physical and climatic conditions.

HB 25 proposes reducing the 50‑meter rescue and surveillance buffer to 20 meters and excludes criteria such as storm surge impact. According to the ACLU, this would significantly weaken protections for coastal public-domain property and shrink the areas legally considered public.

“For example, it reduces environmental protections in sensitive areas such as the mangroves of La Parguera—ecosystems essential for biodiversity and the island’s environmental stability,” the organization warned.

The ACLU further noted that the new definition could facilitate private claims on lands previously understood to fall within the maritime-terrestrial zone. It also lacks mechanisms to safeguard “traditional public use,” potentially worsening tensions between public access and private development.

While acknowledging that some private concessions on public land are permitted under law, the ACLU stressed that these are handled on a case-by-case basis—not by altering the constitutional definition of a protected natural resource.