ecopal
05-09-2006, 01:37 PM
Walton County beach restoration jeopardized by new court decision?
First District Court of Appeals Reverses Beach Nourishment Permits
Essentially this may not stop beach renourishment in Walton county but will make the whole issue more complicated and controversial.
This is a complicated case and will be discussed at the County Commissioners meeting Tuesday May 9.
For further information I suggest you go to :
http://www.southwaltoncc.org/
Below is a very simplified summary.
On April 28th the First District Court of Appeals reversed the previous finding under which the current beach nourishment effort is operating. The county and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) must appeal this week.
A group of property owners have gone into court to challenge the current beach nourishment project in both Walton and Okaloosa county.
The court decided the Destin property owners did not have standing. *The Walton County owners do.
The case does not mean that beach nourishment projects cannot go forward.
The main question is whether such projects, now or in the future, must compensate certain upland property owners for any “taking” of their private property (eminent domain) if such owners do not grant consent to the nourishment of their beach area.
Some counties have avoided this issue by not including any objecting properties in the beach nourishment project. Some are concerned, however, that leaving such “channels” within the nourished beach may act as a “blow out” area and accelerate water flow into them and increase erosion not only on the non-nourished beach but on the adjacent nourished areas.
Walton County elected to nourish all of the beach in the Miramar area.
This is important. The Walton County property owners stayed in the case because their deeds give them ownership to the “mean high water line”. Therefore, they have *“riparian rights”. *Riparian rights are certain rights given by law to people who own property which “borders upon navigable waters” and whose title “extends to the ordinary high water mark”.
It should be noted that in Walton County, many deeds do not extend ownership to the high watermark. This case is restricted in its application only to those with riparian rights.
In the current case, the property owners claim that their riparian rights have been illegally impacted by the nourishment project- specifically, the right to have *property remain in contact with the water and the right to receive accretions to the beach.
The property owners claim the loss of their right of accretion and the right of their property to abut the water under the state statute constitutes a taking of their property without just compensation.
The court agreed and found that the Beach and Shore Preservation Act deprives the property owners of their riparian rights without just compensation for the property taken. The court remanded the case back to FDEP to document the riparian rights holders and their riparian rights.
The court further provided: “If the project cannot reasonably be accomplished without the taking of private property, the taking must be made by the requesting authority by eminent domain proceedings.”
A huge issue presented by this case is whether an upland owner’s *right of accretion should extend to publicly funded, artificially created beach.
Obviously, the entire state is watching this case. The county and DEP must appeal by next week.
First District Court of Appeals Reverses Beach Nourishment Permits
Essentially this may not stop beach renourishment in Walton county but will make the whole issue more complicated and controversial.
This is a complicated case and will be discussed at the County Commissioners meeting Tuesday May 9.
For further information I suggest you go to :
http://www.southwaltoncc.org/
Below is a very simplified summary.
On April 28th the First District Court of Appeals reversed the previous finding under which the current beach nourishment effort is operating. The county and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) must appeal this week.
A group of property owners have gone into court to challenge the current beach nourishment project in both Walton and Okaloosa county.
The court decided the Destin property owners did not have standing. *The Walton County owners do.
The case does not mean that beach nourishment projects cannot go forward.
The main question is whether such projects, now or in the future, must compensate certain upland property owners for any “taking” of their private property (eminent domain) if such owners do not grant consent to the nourishment of their beach area.
Some counties have avoided this issue by not including any objecting properties in the beach nourishment project. Some are concerned, however, that leaving such “channels” within the nourished beach may act as a “blow out” area and accelerate water flow into them and increase erosion not only on the non-nourished beach but on the adjacent nourished areas.
Walton County elected to nourish all of the beach in the Miramar area.
This is important. The Walton County property owners stayed in the case because their deeds give them ownership to the “mean high water line”. Therefore, they have *“riparian rights”. *Riparian rights are certain rights given by law to people who own property which “borders upon navigable waters” and whose title “extends to the ordinary high water mark”.
It should be noted that in Walton County, many deeds do not extend ownership to the high watermark. This case is restricted in its application only to those with riparian rights.
In the current case, the property owners claim that their riparian rights have been illegally impacted by the nourishment project- specifically, the right to have *property remain in contact with the water and the right to receive accretions to the beach.
The property owners claim the loss of their right of accretion and the right of their property to abut the water under the state statute constitutes a taking of their property without just compensation.
The court agreed and found that the Beach and Shore Preservation Act deprives the property owners of their riparian rights without just compensation for the property taken. The court remanded the case back to FDEP to document the riparian rights holders and their riparian rights.
The court further provided: “If the project cannot reasonably be accomplished without the taking of private property, the taking must be made by the requesting authority by eminent domain proceedings.”
A huge issue presented by this case is whether an upland owner’s *right of accretion should extend to publicly funded, artificially created beach.
Obviously, the entire state is watching this case. The county and DEP must appeal by next week.