STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC. V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
560 U.S. 702 (2010)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over whether a decision of a State court took
property without just compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment