BEER, Judge. Appellant, Save Our Wetlands, Inc. (hereafter, “SOWL”), filed suit for injunctive and declarative relief against Werner Brothers, Inc., alleging their breach of the state constitution by reason' of their construction of a lakefront restaurant which has, as its foundation, pilings driven into the water bottom of Lake Pontchartrain. SOWL’s contentions are based on

Article IX,

Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 which prohibits alienation of the water bottom of Lake Pontchartrain except for purposes of reclamation by the riparian owner or reclamation for public use. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s suit, and it appeals. The Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers) issued a permit on September 2, 1975, authorizing Werner Brothers, Inc. to construct and maintain a building (and connecting walkway) structured on pilings driven in Lake Pontchartrain. The location of the proposed three-story complex was between Fitzgerald’s Restaurant and Pier Orleans, about 600 feet north of the Metair-ie Relief Outfall Canal in the

section known as West End and located on the Jefferson Parish side, just past the parish line between Jefferson and Orleans. At the trial court hearing on the preliminary injunction, George Werner, in response to a subpoena duces tecum, produced their application to the Corps of Engineers, as well as the permit issued subsequent to a public hearing, and also produced various local, state and federal agency-originated letters (or related documents) evidencing approval (or lack of objection to) the proposed construction project.

The trial judge concluded that the construction had been authorized by a permit issued by the U. S. Corps of Engineers and that all requirements and pre-requisites were satisfied in the issuance of the permit. He also concluded that no objection to the project was voiced by any of the various political subdivisions affected, or by the Attorney General in behalf of the State of Louisiana or its agencies. Notwithstanding these important conclusions, we see the primary issue as being whether SOWL met its burden of showing that it had standing to proceed as a proper party plaintiff in the first place.

We believe that it did not. Accordingly, for this reason as well as those of the trial court, the judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED.