Stop The Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department Of Environmental Protection

560 U.S. 702 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Florida passed the Beach and Shore Preservation Act. It establishes procedures for 'beach restoration and nourishment projects.' The fixed erosion-control line replaces the fluctuating mean high-water line as the boundary between privately owned littoral property and state property. Once the erosion-control line is recorded, the common law ceases to increase upland property by accretion (or decrease it by erosion). Thus, when accretion to the shore moves the mean high-water line seaward, the property of beachfront landowners is not extended to that line (as the prior law provided) but remains bounded by the permanent erosion-control line. If the beach erodes back landward of the erosion-control line over a substantial portion of the shoreline covered by the project, the Board may, on its own initiative, or must, if asked by the owners or lessees of a majority of the property affected, direct the agency responsible for maintaining the beach to return the beach to the condition contemplated by the project. If that is not done within a year, the project is canceled and the erosion-control line is null and void. The city of Destin and Walton County applied for the necessary permits to restore 6.9 miles of beach within their jurisdictions that had been eroded by several hurricanes. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., (P) is a nonprofit corporation formed by people who own beachfront property bordering the project area. P brought an administrative challenge to the proposed project and then challenged that action in state court under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court of Appeal determined the order had eliminated two of Ps' littoral rights: (1) the right to receive accretions to their property; and (2) the right to have the contact of their property with the water remain intact. This, it believed, would be an unconstitutional taking, which would 'unreasonably infringe on riparian rights,' and therefore require the showing that the local governments owned or had a property interest in the upland property. It set aside the Department's final order approving the permits and remanded for that showing to be made. It also certified to the Florida Supreme Court the following question: 'On its face, does the Beach and Shore Preservation Act unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of littoral rights without just compensation?' The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative and quashed the First District's remand. It faulted the Court of Appeal for not considering the doctrine of avulsion, which it concluded permitted the State to reclaim the restored beach on behalf of the public. Ps sought certiorari.