Customary Beach Use

So?? Have they even bothered to look up that statute? It does not exist.
I have the hardest time with this as an excuse.

Tell me about it. I guess if someone put up a sign saying murder was legal and quoted a Statute number, then it must be legal. Amazing to me the trouble people go to in order to get out of work.

I think what has been/is being done with the springs is a good example of how a past mistake can be undone.

Thinking you are speaking of Morrison Springs, yes, Brannon has done an excellent job in leading the charge in placing that ownership back to the public for use and enjoyment. And it was done without a declaration that the place was now public. The owners were compensated and agreed to transfer ownership. Really a great example of how to approach the beach issue, I guess. Just quite a few more owners to deal with.

.
The Oregon Supreme Court eventually ruled that unrestricted public use of beaches since aboriginal times granted the public a ?prescriptive right? of access to the ?dry sand? beaches above high tide line regardless of what title documents said. That 1967 decision still guarantees public use of Oregon?s beaches today."

Maybe we will get lucky and the Florida Supremes will offer a similar ruling in the near future.

Maybe we will get lucky and the Florida Supremes will offer a similar ruling in the near future.

...I'm not holding my breath--not now that Sorry Charlie will be packing the bench with Developers' Biyaches.

.

...I'm not holding my breath--not now that Sorry Charlie will be packing the bench with Developers' Biyaches.

.

Personally, I figure it will go the other way, or least very centrist. His last act on the way to the White House.

Personally, I figure it will go the other way, or least very centrist. His last act on the way to the White House.

Stop that! :nono1:

Just a number I keep hearing at meetings and such. Thanks for the correction. So we have 13 miles of public land. I guess that does tend to change the whole dynamic then.

Let me clarify that I, nor anyone that I am aware of, has done the calculation. Maybe they have. The only thing I know for sure is that it is at least 11. It may not be 13 because many of the approximately 50 beach accesses are only easements that are 30 feet or less, some in Seagrove are only 5 feet. So, I was wondering where those larger numbers came from.

His last act on the way to the White House.

...from your lips to the Democratic candidate's ear.

.

Let me clarify that I, nor anyone that I am aware of, has done the calculation. Maybe they have. The only thing I know for sure is that it is at least 11. It may not be 13 because many of the approximately 50 beach accesses are only easements that are 30 feet or less, some in Seagrove are only 5 feet. So, I was wondering where those larger numbers came from.

Commissioners keep telling me that the TDC is working on a map. Been telling me that for a year so I am having my doubts that this is happening. I do not know why the BCC does not have their GIS department get busy doing one. should not take that long and Pilcher's people could verify things at the end.

The number that I used of 16 miles is what I have heard from various sources in the past. My understanding was that it included all of the shore line in Walton County either held by the state or Walton County, dedicated easements, and that portion of the parcels on the shore line where the deeds do not include language that states ownership to the mean high water line.

I have never seen it on any map or official document. A title search on each parcel would make that determination I guess. An owner would also have to make a determination through a survey to the exact mean high water line on his parcel. I believe that very few have actually made that determination through a survey.


What is the legal significance of the Mean High Water Line in Florida and why must we survey it?

The Florida State Constitution, Article X, Miscellaneous Section 11 states as follows:

Section 11. Sovereignty lands - The title to lands under navigable waters within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest. Am./H.J.R/792/1970/adopted/1970

AND

In 1974 the Florida Legislature determined that: " … the mean high water line as the boundary between state sovereignty lands and uplands subject to private ownership as well as the necessity for uniform standards and procedures with respect to the establishment of local tidal datums and the determination of the mean high water…"

Chapter 177.26 F.S.

The Legislature also authorized the Florida Professional Surveyor and Mapper as the only personnel qualified to establish the mean high water line.

Now let's look at that paragraph in detail. First, a few definitions.

"Mean High Water line" means the intersection of the tidal plane of mean high water with the shore.

"State sovereignty land" or "sovereignty submerged lands" means the title to all sovereignty tidal and submerged bottom lands located in navigable waters, and includes all coastal and intracoastal waters of the state. Title is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (the Governor and the Cabinet) often referred to as TIIFT or simply the Trustees.

By this time you may be scratching your head asking: Who gave the submerged land to the Trustees? And why?

As each new State entered the Union she received those lands beneath "tide waters" or "navigable waters" and the waters themselves to hold, in trust for the citizens of the new State. In Florida, those submerged lands are vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIIFT) and are managed by the Division of State Lands, Department of Environmental protection. In other words each new State enjoys the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction as the original thirteen states. These "rights" concerning lands beneath either "tide waters" or "navigable waters" have confused Federal and State courts for more than 200 years. The 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case, Phillips Petroleum v. Mississippi, pivoted around whether Mississippi received in trust all lands beneath tide waters, regardless of navigability of those tide waters, when she entered the Union in 1817, or whether she received in trust only those lands beneath waters that were navigable-in-fact at the time of statehood. The Supreme Court ruled that all lands beneath tide waters, regardless of navigability of those tide waters, were received by the State when she entered the Union. In layman terms this ruling is known as the "toothpick sailboat test" of navigability. That is to say - submerged lands beneath tidal waters, subject to daily periodic tidal effects, are navigable if the hypothetical "toothpick sailboat" will float on the water.

What about the uniform standards to establish local tidal datums and why is the Land Surveyor is involved?

In Chapter 177, Part II, F. S., Coastal Mapping, the 1974 Legislature established the Office of Coastal Boundary Surveying and Mapping under the Department of Natural Resources, now known as the Bureau of Survey and Mapping, under the Department of Environmental Protection: " To develop uniform specifications and regulations for tidal surveying and mapping coastal areas of the state."

Chapter 177.29 (2) (f)

Finally, Chapter 177.36 of the Act specifically identifies: " … qualified personnel licensed by the Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers or by representatives of the U. S. Government when approved by the Department." as the only personnel authorized to perform mean high water line surveys

Thanks Bob for the 16-mile explanation. Like I said, I have never seen that level of documentation as I agree with you that it would take a lot by lot title search and I wasn't aware that anyone had done that.


As a side note, years ago I had a conversation with an old timer that told me that only about 20 properties had deeds that said they owned to MHW. Needless to say, that is incorrect. :roll:

Commissioners keep telling me that the TDC is working on a map. Been telling me that for a year so I am having my doubts that this is happening. I do not know why the BCC does not have their GIS department get busy doing one. should not take that long and Pilcher's people could verify things at the end.

If it was that easy it would have probably been done already as ownership is only one aspect. It doesn't take into effect all the other legal conveyances that could occur and those would take a lot by lot title search.

Declaring customary use would probably solve a lot of problems. But how are you going to compensate people for the taking of private land. If they have a deed is that not all they need? Or do we just ignore that deed because we do not like what it says? And if you do the taking, where does the money come from to defend that taking? With revenue limits and SOH along with flat growth, what revenue source do you tap?

I don't think you understand Customary Use. It isn't a taking of private property. The deed-holder is not giving up his or her rights to use the land, by a Court ruling that the land has been used by the public for more than 20 years and therefore may continue to be used by the public. The pubic gains nothing, since the public has been using the land anyway.

Read up on Prescriptive Easements, and you may have a better understanding of the subtle differences between the two.

There are private beach signs in Miramar where beach restoration has already been done. So I would say some are arguing the other way quite effectively.

Walton County Code Enforcement says they can't do anything about the signs because the signs reference a Florida statute. DEP doesn't seem to have any jurisdiction over sign content.

Speaking of Mirarmar, I understand that the the County has to pay for two lifeguards at the "private" beach in front of the Majestic. Why isn't the Majestic paying for those lifeguards? The TDC maintains that beach and the SWFD Lifeguards are stationed there, yet the public cannot use "their" beach.

Speaking of Mirarmar, I understand that the the County has to pay for two very much needed lifeguards to be stationed at the "private" beach in front of the Majestic. Why isn't the Majestic paying for those lifeguards? The TDC maintains that beach and the SWFD Lifeguards are stationed there, yet the public cannot use "their" beach.

Well, this certainly makes no sense. SJ, how was it decided where the lifeguards would be stationed?

I'm not sure how the locations of the County Lifeguard Stations are determined. Miramar has many rescue incidents so maybe they look at the frequency of rip currents, number of beach goers, etc. I bet the SWFD could tell you.

Speaking of Mirarmar, I understand that the the County has to pay for two very much needed lifeguards to be stationed at the "private" beach in front of the Majestic. Why isn't the Majestic paying for those lifeguards? The TDC maintains that beach and the SWFD Lifeguards are stationed there, yet the public cannot use "their" beach.

SJ,

That's inaccurate so you may want to follow-up on who told you that. SWFD lifeguards that the TDC pays for are only located at County/TDC regional accesses that have restrooms. The closest one to Majestic Sun is the Miramar Access, west of Pompano Joe's restaurant. Does the SWFD have other side agreements with private groups?

Second Majestic Sun is open to the public on two fronts. One is due to the beach restoration project and ECL line. Secondly, as part of the original DRI process, the developers of Seascape granted a "public use easement" but I am not sure of exactly which type so it falls into the privately-owned but open to the public category. Surfside which is located east of Majestic Sun does not fall into the second category but does have the ECL line.

SJ,

That's inaccurate so you may want to follow-up on who told you that. SWFD lifeguards that the TDC pays for are only located at County/TDC regional accesses that have restrooms. The closest one to Majestic Sun is the Miramar Access, west of Pompano Joe's restaurant. Does the SWFD have other side agreements with private groups?

Second Majestic Sun is open to the public on two fronts. One is due to the beach restoration project and ECL line. Secondly, as part of the original DRI process, the developers of Seascape granted a "public use easement" but I am not sure of exactly which type so it falls into the privately-owned but open to the public category. Surfside which is located east of Majestic Sun does not fall into the second category but does have the ECL line.

As to lessen confusion until I can further clarify, I deleted my post. I'll try to follow up and report back.

I have not heard of side agreements with private groups and the County, but it goes back to the issue of public funds being used to maintain property claiming to be privately owned. (refering specifically to the TDC trashcans and maintenance)

Second Majestic Sun is open to the public on two fronts. One is due to the beach restoration project and ECL line. Secondly, as part of the original DRI process, the developers of Seascape granted a "public use easement" but I am not sure of exactly which type so it falls into the privately-owned but open to the public category. Surfside which is located east of Majestic Sun does not fall into the second category but does have the ECL line.

They have 2 Lifegaurds, Private beach signs, free beach renurishment and security gaurds. They also have all there crap consuming the area so no one can get thru. I investigated first hand. The info on the lifegaurds came strait from the SWFD, 2 of them. They also have the areas worst ripetides. Pm me and I'll send ya photos

Oh yea they have a Poropotty there for the lifeguard. I believe that may be illegal?

A few years ago, I saw a fairly extensive report prepared by the TDC for the County on access points and right of way locations along the entire beach. You might request to see this if anyone can locate. Very informative, pictures, locations, etc. It is also amazing to see the number of public beach access points and right of ways that were blocked with anything from a fence, pool or even a building. Perhaps the right of ways might transfer to public access points or clarify right of public use. That might get you up to that bigger number. This could really open up a bag of worms, so some may be in no hurry to find or clarify. For example, could a condo be asked to remove a fence it has built between its building and the next that blocks a public beach access or right of way?

They have 2 Lifegaurds, Private beach signs, free beach renurishment and security gaurds. They also have all there crap consuming the area so no one can get thru. I investigated first hand. The info on the lifegaurds came strait from the SWFD, 2 of them. They also have the areas worst ripetides. Pm me and I'll send ya photos

Like I said, the beach isn't private at Seascape but that doesn't mean its not signed that way. As for the lifeguards, I can tell you they aren't being paid for as part of the TDC/County's program as that is only at County-owned regional accesses with restrooms. The closest one the TDC/County is paying for is over at the Miramar Access beside PJoe's. So is the SWFD moonlighting for a private company at Majestic Sun?

They definitely HAVE the info - I've seen it and flipped through it, so it isn't a Sowal Legend - it's in a couple white 3 ring binders complete w/ photos, addresses, and descriptions of each access.

Whether they will do anything with it/publicize it is a different story.

By the way, Morrison Springs was acquired by a previous commission, not Brannon. In fact, there has been criticism on how it is now being overly developed per letter to editor in DeFuniak Herald some weeks ago.

A few years ago, I saw a fairly extensive report prepared by the TDC for the County on access points and right of way locations along the entire beach. You might request to see this if anyone can locate. Very informative, pictures, locations, etc. It is also amazing to see the number of public beach access points and right of ways that were blocked with anything from a fence, pool or even a building. Perhaps the right of ways might transfer to public access points or clarify right of public use. That might get you up to that bigger number. This could really open up a bag of worms, so some may be in no hurry to find or clarify. For example, could a condo be asked to remove a fence it has built between its building and the next that blocks a public beach access or right of way?

I am also familiar with the report you are talking about which is one reason why the TDC now has about 50 beach accesses from the mid-20's in 2004. Unfortunately, a lot of the perceived beach accesses were for utilities and other uses instead of County easements for pubic use and access. Additionally, some were abandoned a long time ago in County Commission minutes, or were perceived as publically-owned areas but in reality were privately-owned and have been converted into existing parcels like the ones that we have discussed in Blue Mountain.

That being said, new ones are adequately documented and added to the TDC list every year. For example, this year one was added on Scenic Gulf Drive at the south end of Geronimo Street.