Public vs Private Beach

From the Florida 5th District Court of Appeals, Trepanier et al v. County of Volusia:
"The common law public trust doctrine is embodied in Article 10, section 11 of the
Florida Constitution. Under that provision, title to the portion of the beach below the
mean high water line is held by the state in trust for all the people. The “beach,”
however, includes more land than what is set aside for the people under the public trust
doctrine. The area above the mean high water line is subject to private ownership. ?
177.28(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). See also Clement v. Watson, 58 So. 25, 26 (Fla. 1912). In
Florida, courts have recognized that the public may acquire rights to the dry sand areas
of privately owned portions of the beach through the alternative methods of prescription,
dedication, and custom. S. Brent Spain, Florida Beach Access: Nothing but Wet
Sand?, 15 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 167, 171-172 (1999)."

SJ,

See Link. Again it is absolutely rediculous to compare Volusia County (Daytona Beach) with Walton County. But only someone like you would...someone blinded with the urge to always be right at any cost.

Why don't you threaten a sit-in and get arrested at Rosemary? Seaside? Watersound? Watercolor? Retreat? ...all private beaches...with large and well funded HOAs...most with "no trespassing" signs and willing to enforce it (and have in the past).

I'll tell you and the others why you won't. It's because you're full of hot air and lip service.

You have taken this whole thing to a definite personal level from you to me. Kind of wimpy in my opinion.

Why don't you and the others make your "statement" at Seaside or the Retreat? You'll get your names and pictures in the paper. You'll have your chance to take them to court and prove customary use. You'll get to meet the Sheriff face to face. In short all your dreams will come true. You will become local folk heroes. You'll be famous and revered. Isn't this what you're really looking for?


If you're going to talk the talk then walk the walk and quit threatening little ole me by telling me to call the Sheriff on you for sitting on my little piece of paradise. I should call your parents first for being a bully.


AND again you still haven't ANSWERED what constitutes customary use.

I really don't understand what you are saying. I don't stage a sit in because I have no desire to do so to organize a group of people. I just do what I do, and that does include sitting on the beach. I've done so numerous times on the beach in front of The Retreat, and I do so at least once a week in Seaside. To my knowledge, I haven't had my chance in court, because no one has ever asked me not to sit on the beach.

Personally, I could care less if you were not involved in the issue, so your involvement isn't a personal issue with me. I don't even know you.

You keep saying that customary use has not been defined, but it is defined by the Courts. It is very obvious to me that if you had read the cases I have cited, you would see that, but go ahead, continue to stick your head in the sand.

From the 5DCA:
"Florida's Supreme Court first recognized the public's "customary" right to the use of Florida's privately17 owned dry sand beaches in the Tona-Rama decision. 294 So. 2d at 74. There the court said:
"The beaches of Florida are of such a character as to use
and potential development as to require separate
consideration from other lands with respect to the elements
and consequences of title. The sandy portion of the beaches
. . . [have] served as a thoroughfare and haven for fishermen
and bathers, as well as a place of recreation for the public.
The interest and rights of the public to the full use of the
beaches should be protected. 294 So. 2d at 77. The court recognized that the public may acquire a right to use the sandy area adjacent to the mean high tide line by custom when “the recreational use of
the sandy area . . . has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute . . . .” Id. at 78.

The recognition of a right through "custom" means that the owner cannot use his property in a way that is inconsistent with the public’s customary
use or “calculated to interfere with the exercise of the right of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recreational adjunct of the wet sand or foreshore area.” Id."

(A period of twenty years was specifically defined as "ancient." )

For the record, I have not threatened you. When you make a statement like that, it is difficult to want to address you any further. Good day.

I really don't understand what you are saying. I don't stage a sit in because I have no desire to do so to organize a group of people. I just do what I do, and that does include sitting on the beach. I've done so numerous times on the beach in front of The Retreat, and I do so at least once a week in Seaside. To my knowledge, I haven't had my chance in court, because no one has ever asked me not to sit on the beach.

Like I asked Bear one time, then what's the problem?

Personally, I could care less if you were not involved in the issue, so your involvement isn't a personal issue with me. I don't even know you.

I some somehow find that disingenuous.

You keep saying that customary use has not been defined, but it is defined by the Courts.

Show me already! - in language we all can understand. Via courtesy I've distilled information for you in the past so you didn't have to thumb through hundreds of pages or be a legal wiz to understand someone else's quoted interpretation. Can't you at least return the favor?

It is very obvious to me that if you had read the cases I have cited, you would see that, but go ahead, continue to stick your head in the sand.

Does anyone else know what SJ is talking about? PLEASE???

For the record, I have not threatened you. When you make a statement like that, it is difficult to want to address you any further. Good day.

Didn't you just say "I may even continue after the courts make a determination. No biggy to me. Go ahead and call the Sheriff on me." ?
Is that not a threat? Sure seems like one. And wasn't that directed at me?

Good night.

Yes, the comment to call the Sheriff on me was directed to you. How is that a threat?

BMBV, I'm placing you in Red Neck Time Out.

From the 5DCA:
"Florida's Supreme Court first recognized the public's "customary" right to the use of Florida's privately17 owned dry sand beaches in the Tona-Rama decision. 294 So. 2d at 74. There the court said:
"The beaches of Florida are of such a character as to use
and potential development as to require separate
consideration from other lands with respect to the elements
and consequences of title. The sandy portion of the beaches
. . . [have] served as a thoroughfare and haven for fishermen
and bathers, as well as a place of recreation for the public.
The interest and rights of the public to the full use of the
beaches should be protected. 294 So. 2d at 77. The court recognized that the public may acquire a right to use the sandy area adjacent to the mean high tide line by custom when ?the recreational use of
the sandy area . . . has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute . . . .? Id. at 78.

(A period of twenty years was specifically defined as "ancient." )

Thank you for the research Smiling JOe. This looks like a pretty thorough determination of customary use to me. Nothing, of course, will satisfy the previous poster. He will continue to act out in a troll like manner and attempt to bait you. Remember, trolls always need the last word, and this one is behaving true to form.

BMBV, do you think it would be a good idea for neighboring beach front owners to get together and share walkovers? I am addresing this point because i truly believe that 1.they are ugly and detract from the natural beauty of the forward dune system and 2. they are expensive to remove from the beach as was done twice for many if not most of them in 04/05 after storms.

If you already do this then BRAVO. If this is not an option in your case for some reason then might you consider a path type walkover instead of a large wooden structure?

How do you feel about the 3 county vehicles a day driving on your beach?
i think many residents, beach owners and non owners feel the tire tracks detract from the natural beauty, are dangerous to a small degree, and are not the best way to serve the beaches.

You asked BMBV the above question but I am going to put my two cents worth in. The liability factor alone makes it questionable to combine walkovers. Not only that, but you really are violating private property rights when you allow anyone to access the beach through their property. There is no "customary use" doctrine application in this case. I spend a good deal of time, at my advanced age, sitting on my walkover enjoying the sea life, birds, people playing on the beach, kites, dolphins, sunsets and sunrises and a myriad of other things. The feeling of comfort and solitude is one of the many things I have worked for all my life and I find it is greatly magnified by relaxing on our walkover. And you want me to give this up? About the vehicles. No, it doesn't bother me that they use the beach since they do much more good than harm. They pick up the trash left on the beach if the tourists are responsible enough to put them in the containers supplied by the TDC. In the summer, often the truck pulls a leveler (can't think of the correct term) behind the truck to smooth the sand. The beaches would be a much bigger mess without the trucks. Our safety at the beach is also part of the traffic on the beach as the sheriff's dept. and safety personnel also drive on the beach. BH, with all due respect, it would appear you do not live on the beach and have little understanding of the joys and problems doing so.

regarding vehicles on the beach. it seems it would be much less efficient to have any service vehicles/work using the public accesses to get naything done and remove trash. If all the vehicles pulled a leveler/weighted screen behind them, i'm sure the visual/safety factor would be greatly reduced.

BMBV, do you think it would be a good idea for neighboring beach front owners to get together and share walkovers? I am addresing this point because i truly believe that 1.they are ugly and detract from the natural beauty of the forward dune system and 2. they are expensive to remove from the beach as was done twice for many if not most of them in 04/05 after storms.

Yes, it is a good idea. But this typically works when 2 ADJACENT properties share a walkover that is built on the property line. That way each neighbor does not have to cross over the other's property. I know of two occasions near me in BMB where this is done. Old Florida Beach is another example of "community" walkovers (there are others). However this should only be a "voluntary" thing. Hopefully the economics and aesthetics would encourage more of it. But then you may have a neighbor you don't get along with, and ANDY A's desire for solitude, becomes fully understandable to want your own walkover.

If you already do this then BRAVO. If this is not an option in your case for some reason then might you consider a path type walkover instead of a large wooden structure?

A structure (stairs) is the only practical way to access the beach from our elevation.

How do you feel about the 3 county vehicles a day driving on your beach?

Bugs the heck out of me!

i think many residents, beach owners and non owners feel the tire tracks detract from the natural beauty, are dangerous to a small degree, and are not the best way to serve the beaches.

I see no need for the sheriff to routinely patrol the beach. It's just a bad use of manpower and a waste of fuel. And in my opinion, it does not help Walton County's image, in light of the private/public beach issues. An UNSCHEDULED patrol every now and then would be just as effective.

Also, trash pickup should be scheduled to minimize the number of runs needed to prevent garbage from overflowing.


We go to the beach to get away from our everyday lives not to be reminded of it.

Andy I see what you are saying and agree with some of your ideas.
Is your enjoyment of all you see, hear, feel, smell and taste during you beach time enhanced because you are sitting on a large wooden structure?

My idea is based on my hippocratic oath to first do no harm. And secondly if doing NO harm is not possible to do as little harm as possible. Now i know there are those including experts that feel a path type walkover would do more harm that wooden polls sunk 10 or 20 feet into the dune system and weighing thousands of pounds. Even after those have been ripped out from time to time. I believe their idea is that constant foot traffic is more harmful. I fail to see how but they may be right. I was told that our geologic makeup is a rather shallow covering of white sand over the more iron laden orange layer. If that is so then the fix for a worn path walkover is to top it off with a little more beautiful white sand. While the fix for a destroyed wooden walkover is to first remove all the beach strewn debris, repair the dune , rebuild the structure and then to top the affected areas all off with some more beautiful white sand.

I just feel my idea is 1. more aesthetically pleasing. 2. less costly in construction and maintenance. 3. less harmful in reality(debatable) i understand

Is it possible that two or more neighbors who do not use their properties as rentals and are beyond the days of confrontation and litigation could combine their walkovers and do less harm? And is it possible that the "PUBLICLY" owned walkovers maybe even just a few would be practical and efficient as path type walkovers.

Andy i am here in no way to change your private property rights or beach enjoyment. And i am not envious or judgemental of your beach front dwelling. Change was inevitable and not even a bad thing. I just picture the beaches of sowal as they were before the days of marketing and development of houses and walkovers. It was a beautiful sight. One children can only imagine. Picture you beach walk with only path type walkovers along the way.

And really all i am saying is that from time to time new, old ideas can change things for the better for all of us.

Yes, it is a good idea. But this typically works when 2 ADJACENT properties share a walkover that is built on the property line. That way each neighbor does not have to cross over the other's property. I know of two occasions near me in BMB where this is done. Old Florida Beach is another example of "community" walkovers (there are others). However this should only be a "voluntary" thing. Hopefully the economics and aesthetics would encourage more of it. But then you may have a neighbor you don't get along with, and ANDY A's desire for solitude, becomes fully understandable to want your own walkover.
...

Andy A. touched on it. One big issue with sharing a common walkover is the private property issue of establishing permission for others to use your own property. In addition, the neighbors would likely share the costs of the structure, which could imply some encroachment issues. This ties nicely into what we've been saying about the Customary Use of the "privately deeded" beach, by the public.

BH, you may be right about paths instead of walkovers but I seriously doubt it and we have "Don't walk on the Dunes" signs everywhere as recommended by SWCC, TDC, FDEP and other environmental groups. I, personally, yell at every kid I see climbing on the dune above the toe of it. Also, we and other beach front owners, have spent thousands of dollars to re-build the dunes and plant sea oats and other vegetation on the dunes. As I said previously, there is much more to living on or in close proximity to the beach than meets the eye and yes, it is expensive, much more than I and others anticipated when we bought our place, which in my case, was long before all this bru-ha-ha started.

I bet some people's sand and seawalls costs more than their original purchase of the property.

i guess this bru-ha-ha is really just a lot of hooey when you think of it...everyone is having a good time and loving life as far as i can see!

Bsio2,
on table 5-1 of Taylor Eng. Study and and again in the summary there is the chart/summary statement that...."Large scale Beach restoration projects (at named reaches with named volumes)

"PROVIDE 100 YEAR RETURN PERIOD STORM PROTECTION."

I could translate that a couple of different ways but i would rather have the official translation from you and/or maybe Taylor since it is their report. Thanks in advance for your time.

Bsio2,
on table 5-1 of Taylor Eng. Study and and again in the summary there is the chart/summary statement that...."Large scale Beach restoration projects (at named reaches with named volumes)

"PROVIDE 100 YEAR RETURN PERIOD STORM PROTECTION."

I could translate that a couple of different ways but i would rather have the official translation from you and/or maybe Taylor since it is their report. Thanks in advance for your time.

100-year storm protection is an engineering term that relates to frequency of impact/risk. In essence, there is a 1 in 100 or 1% chance that a 100 year storm would occur on any given year. In regards to a beach restoration project, if that storm does occur then all of the placed sand would erode, but NOT any of the pre-project beach. FYI, there has not been a 100-year storm impact Walton County since the records have been kept starting in the late 1800's.

Fascinating, Thanks so much...were (or would) any of Camille Opal Ivan Dennis Katrina Rita or the storm of September 8 1900 known as Isaac's storm in that category? (for the landfall areas if restored)

i swear i won't ask any more questions

Fascinating, Thanks so much...were any of Camille Opal Ivan Dennis Katrina Rita or the storm of September 8 1900 known as Isaac's storm in that category? (for the landfall areas)

i swear i won't ask any more questions

I honestly don't know on all of those but would estimate that 1900 and Katrina would definitely have been. I am not sure about the others.

I can also tell you that with Ivan, there was more sand within the active beach, dune and nearshore areas in Pensacola than before they did their initial beach restoration. In other words, it performed as it was designed with no net loss of pre-project beach.

You can always ask other questions.

Nothing to do with anything, BeachSi02, what happens to those chances of 1 in a 100 on the following year, if we get a 100 year storm in 20XX? Doesn't the chance remain 1 in 100?

Nothing to do with anything, BeachSi02, what happens to those chances of 1 in a 100 on the following year, if we get a 100 year storm in 20XX? Doesn't the chance remain 1 in 100?

Yep, same as having kids. The likelihood remains the same.

So even if all the sand gets washed away by a 100 year storm, and it was nourished (by man), it could still happen again, even as early as the following year or sooner, statistically speaking, right?

So even if all the sand gets washed away by a 100 year storm, and it was nourished (by man), it could still happen again, even as early as the following year or sooner, statistically speaking, right?

Yes, in theory but we haven't had a 100-year storm in over 100 years. Are we lucky, I would say yes. But here's something to keep in mind. In Walton County, the damage (erosional loss) from a 100-year storm is estimated to be "roughly" 2-3 times the amount of sand lost to Dennis and Ivan (~80 CY per foot of beach). So the question a community would face is in regards to what would be lost if that amount of erosion occurred in a pre-construction beach versus just losing sand that was placed seaward of the existing dune in a restoration project and do the benefits outweigh the costs.

Yes, in theory but we haven't had a 100-year storm in over 100 years. Are we lucky, I would say yes. But here's something to keep in mind. In Walton County, the damage (erosional loss) from a 100-year storm is estimated to be "roughly" 2-3 times the amount of sand lost to Dennis and Ivan (~80 CY per foot of beach). So the question a community would face is in regards to what would be lost if that amount of erosion occurred in a pre-construction beach versus just losing sand that was placed seaward of the existing dune in a restoration project and do the benefits outweigh the costs.

But we did have two 100 year floods. One caused by TS Alberta. I do not remember what caused the other one. But after my grandmother's house went under water from a 100 year flood, two or three years apart, she sold to FEMA and moved.