• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

jodiFL

Beach Fanatic
Jul 28, 2007
2,476
733
SOWAL,FL
Please cite your source. Thank you.
The only way to determine the MHWL is by a topographical survey. They are usually only valid for a year because they are based on an 18 year average of the tides. Please dont make me go back and read the entire 161st. chapter of the Florida Statutes to find that paragraph.. LOL

OOPS my bad that is in section 177....... and this one sentence should put the matter to rest but I doubt it will..
177.28 Legal significance of the mean high-water line
.
--
(1) Mean high-water line along the shores of land immediately bordering on navigable waters is
recognized and declared to be the boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its sovereign
capacity and upland subject to private ownership. However, no provision of this part shall be deemed to
constitute a waiver of state ownership of sovereignty submerged lands, nor shall any provision of this part
be deemed to impair the title to privately owned submerged lands validly alienated by the State of Florida
or its legal predecessors.
(2) No provision of this part shall be deemed to modify the common law of this state with respect to the
legal effects of accretion,
reliction, erosion, or avulsion.
History
.
--s. 4,
ch. 74-56.
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
The only way to determine the MHWL is by a topographical survey. They are usually only valid for a year because they are based on an 18 year average of the tides. Please dont make me go back and read the entire 161st. chapter of the Florida Statutes to find that paragraph.. LOL

OOPS my bad that is in section 177....... and this one sentence should put the matter to rest but I doubt it will..
177.28 Legal significance of the mean high-water line
.
--
(1) Mean high-water line along the shores of land immediately bordering on navigable waters is
recognized and declared to be the boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its sovereign
capacity and upland subject to private ownership. However, no provision of this part shall be deemed to
constitute a waiver of state ownership of sovereignty submerged lands, nor shall any provision of this part
be deemed to impair the title to privately owned submerged lands validly alienated by the State of Florida
or its legal predecessors.
(2) No provision of this part shall be deemed to modify the common law of this state with respect to the
legal effects of accretion,
reliction, erosion, or avulsion.
History
.
--s. 4,
ch. 74-56.
The only statement that I am questioning is the requirement to produce an updated MHWL survey every single year for beachfront property right enforcement (assuming anything would be enforced). I have only seen the annual "requirement" stated on this site, but not in the Sheriff's SOP or any other official source pertaining to enforcement of property rights on Walton County beaches. Doesn't mean it isn't accurate, but I'd like to have the OFFICIAL document that states the annual requirement.
 

jodiFL

Beach Fanatic
Jul 28, 2007
2,476
733
SOWAL,FL
The SOP that I found on here (PDF attachment) doesnt say "annual" but I am pretty sure the TOPO surveys have an "expiration date" (for lack of a better term). The document has to be current in order for them to be able to accurately determine where the MHWL is. If the survey is from 3 years ago or 10 years ago that imaginary line in the sand isnt going to be in the same place. As with any other piece of property that the owner is trying have someone arrested for trespass on, the owner is required to prove they actually own said property. But UNLIKE most, they have one boundary line that is not fixed or can be determined by measuring so many feet from a marker.
EDIT: I just checked mine and it is stamped by the surveyor with his FL. registration # as being valid one year from such and such date. Mine is long expired but I dont have a boundary line that fluctuates.
 
Last edited:

Bob Hudson

Beach Fanatic
May 10, 2008
1,066
739
Santa Rosa Beach
LETTER: Law on side of beachfront owners


Posted Jun 19, 2016 at 1:00 AM

Re: Story, June 16, “Walton votes to remove barriers from the beach”

As in Destin, most beachfront property owners in Walton County have deeds showing they own to the mean high-water line, indicating their beach is private and the only public right is to traverse the wet sand foreshore area. For Walton County to attempt to prevent an owner from taking steps to protect his private property from trespassers goes counter to the ruling of courts.

In April 2012, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on appeal that affirmed that although owners could not sue for federal civil rights violations, the court expressly recognized that owners could adopt their own “private security measures” to protect their property; could sue trespassers; and might even sue the City for an uncompensated “taking” of their property. The court also implied that a federal civil rights violation would occur if the Sheriff or the City were to prevent owners from applying their own security measures against trespass.


A logical person would conclude that signage would be an acceptable “private security measure” available to land owners.

The bottom line is that private ownership of unrestored beachfront property extends all the way to the mean high-water line, as the Florida Supreme Court has recognized. Indeed, some beachfront owners have surveys showing that the mean high-water line since Hurricane Opal is out in the water due to the legal concept of avulsion. The legally recognized concept of avulsion states that a sudden and perceptible change in a coast line (e.g. Opal) does not change a property line. The avulsion concept was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court with Opal stated as an example of an avulsive event.

Adding to the confusion in Okaloosa County is the so-called “20-foot rule.” The Sheriff’s 20-foot non-enforcement policy has no effect on the owners’ legal rights to protect their own property and to exclude trespassers in that 20-foot zone. The policy certainly cannot convert private property to public property.

- ROLAND GUIDRY, Destin
 

bmazer

Beach Crab
Jun 13, 2005
2
0
Would be helpful for those who keep referencing that decision to actually go and read it. The only reason that that sand was ruled "customary use" was because the owner had been encouraging visitors to visit his pay for use pier that was on the property. I don't believe any of the owners who are currently trying to protect their property rights are also running a lemonade stand on it to encourage visitors to trespass. That decision supports property rights on the beach.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
The fact is that "customary use" must be proven.

There is no ordinance establishing customary use in Walton County at this time and that's why the county is spending money to attempt to prove it exists in Walton County.

It's NOT your sand yet and may never be yours !

Time will tell and the courts will decide.


Far be it from you to state the obvious Bob. Of course "time will tell and the courts will decide." To the extent that I and others may sway any public influence on the courts I/we will certainly try to do so on the County, State and Federal level if necessary. This issue is far too important to the well being of our coastal economy and our way of beach life than the "property rights" of a few. It has been proven in other States and it may well be proven in our State; if not our beaches will continue to be a place of conflict instead of joy which is unthinkable in my view. Until a few years ago everyone and anyone walked and played on all of our sand without harassment. I and many, many others are willing to fight to keep it that way. "Time will tell"
Time to make a stand in the sand ( All this further expanded upon in this Tallahassee Democrat opinion piece)
 
Last edited:

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Far be it from you to state the obvious Bob. Of course "time will tell and the courts will decide." To the extent that I and others may sway any public influence on the courts I/we will certainly try to do so on the County, State and Federal level if necessary. This issue is far too important to the well being of our coastal economy and our way of beach life than the "property rights" of a few. It has been proven in other States and it may well be proven in our State; if not our beaches will continue to be a place of conflict instead of joy which is unthinkable in my view. Until a few years ago everyone and anyone walked and played on all of our sand without harassment. I and many, many others are willing to fight to keep it that way. "Time will tell"
Time to make a stand in the sand ( All this further expanded upon in this Tallahassee Democrat opinion piece)
I know some beachfront owners who are really nice people and apparently you do, too. No signs, no running people off the beach or even asking them to move. The worst they have done is to ask people to stay off the dunes they are working on re-building out of their own pockets. I also know some that have put up signs because they were overrun by people due to being near a regional or even a neighborhood access. They are nice people, too, they just want to be respected by the people who use the beach and by the county personnel who make and enforce the rules.

Since you are a leader in this movement, would you please define what customary use means to you? I'm not sure that there has been a definition established from a legal standpoint. Would the Walton County BCC then make (or not) all the rules and handle all the enforcement for everything on the entire beach (except state parks)? For instance, could or would customary use entitle vendors anywhere and everywhere? Would the public be able to set up wall-to-wall tents, chairs, and umbrellas anywhere they choose? Could weddings and events be held anywhere on the beach? Could hotdog or snow cone vendors eventually be allowed to use property that someone is paying premium taxes on to run a commercial enterprise (actually I suppose that applies to all vendors)? If a beachfront owner's lot (let's say near an access) is full to the brim with beachgoer "equipment", does that mean the owner who pays taxes doesn't even have priority to have a spot on the beach in front of their house? If I put myself in a beachfront owner's shoes, these are just a few questions that immediately pop into my head (and from concerns I've heard expressed). Some of the things that seem to genuinely concern the people I know, concern me, too. What are your views on these concerns?
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Would be helpful for those who keep referencing that decision to actually go and read it. The only reason that that sand was ruled "customary use" was because the owner had been encouraging visitors to visit his pay for use pier that was on the property. I don't believe any of the owners who are currently trying to protect their property rights are also running a lemonade stand on it to encourage visitors to trespass. That decision supports property rights on the beach.
I have read it and I agree that the case is very different than our situation here in Walton County. If Tona-Rama had been as clear cut as people represent it, I believe there would already be customary use throughout the state of Florida.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter