Well to most right now, the big picture IS the issue of public/private. Until the property issue is settled there will be no renourishment. Even the county realizes that the outcry from using public funds to renourish private beach will be severe.
beach renourishment?
- Thread starter beacheart
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Beacheart, I appreciate your willingness to share and your concern for the beaches. 
So I hate to be the one to break it to you, but part of the reason the beaches are ever-shrinking is because of all the structures there, like yours. Left to its own devices, the beach would eventually build back up, problem is, it can't. This is essentially a barrier island, and it can't roll over on itself and rebuild inland, which is the natural process that has been interupted by all the buildings and now the seawalls. Hence the need for renouishment, which may be derailed by those who wish to keep "their" beach private, not to mention the high price tag and the difficulty in finding sand that won't completely change the character of the beaches as we know them. In my mind the big picture is inevitable retreat. Maybe not now, but eventually it is going to come to that, that is my two cents. 
So I hate to be the one to break it to you, but part of the reason the beaches are ever-shrinking is because of all the structures there, like yours. Left to its own devices, the beach would eventually build back up, problem is, it can't. This is essentially a barrier island, and it can't roll over on itself and rebuild inland, which is the natural process that has been interupted by all the buildings and now the seawalls. Hence the need for renouishment, which may be derailed by those who wish to keep "their" beach private, not to mention the high price tag and the difficulty in finding sand that won't completely change the character of the beaches as we know them. In my mind the big picture is inevitable retreat. Maybe not now, but eventually it is going to come to that, that is my two cents. So let me get this straight - first the county relinquishes the beaches to private gulf-front homeowners and then offers them a tax break to let the public "borrow" back what was once theirs and what their tax dollars are paying for.......there's something terribly wrong with this picture!
I agree with JodiFL - the issue of WHO owns the beach is definitely the bigger picture at the moment. Until that is decided, the county, state or whoever shouldn't spend one dime of taxpayer money to renourish any beaches. If all gulf-front owners were as sensible and understanding as beacheart, this would be a non-issue. Those private homeowners who are fighting so hard to privatize the beaches need to then fork out the funds to maintain the beaches themselves, and if beach erosion eventually endangers their homes, maybe they'll suddenly have an "epiphany"!
I agree with JodiFL - the issue of WHO owns the beach is definitely the bigger picture at the moment. Until that is decided, the county, state or whoever shouldn't spend one dime of taxpayer money to renourish any beaches. If all gulf-front owners were as sensible and understanding as beacheart, this would be a non-issue. Those private homeowners who are fighting so hard to privatize the beaches need to then fork out the funds to maintain the beaches themselves, and if beach erosion eventually endangers their homes, maybe they'll suddenly have an "epiphany"!Right on, luvthebeach!
Amen, beacheart! 
Thank you for speaking up as a gulf front homeowner! It seems some of these large subdivisions on the beach, e.g. Rosemary with their hired guards and Seaside with their eye pollution signs on our beaches, are kind of intimidating because I don't hear too many reasonable folks like yourself speaking up. Is Alys attempting to privatize that part of Seacrest Beach? 
I'm asking. We need to all praise the beach front homeowners like yourself, beacheart, who speak up against the travesty. No one can own the beach. I never heard of this anywhere else in the state and I have lived in several beach towns further east and also south. It's just wrong.
THANK YOU for sharing and not claiming the beach as your own even if you are a beachfront homeowner. Thank you for speaking up too. It's not as easy as it appears evidently. Who else is a beachfront homeowner that agrees the beach is for all?! Speak up like beacheart, please. WE SALUTE YOU!!! YOU are soooo very 
!!! I think every Walton County beach should have a public access. Anyone else for that?
Amen, beacheart! Thank you for speaking up as a gulf front homeowner! It seems some of these large subdivisions on the beach, e.g. Rosemary with their hired guards and Seaside with their eye pollution signs on our beaches, are kind of intimidating because I don't hear too many reasonable folks like yourself speaking up. Is Alys attempting to privatize that part of Seacrest Beach? I'm asking. We need to all praise the beach front homeowners like yourself, beacheart, who speak up against the travesty. No one can own the beach. I never heard of this anywhere else in the state and I have lived in several beach towns further east and also south. It's just wrong. THANK YOU for sharing and not claiming the beach as your own even if you are a beachfront homeowner. Thank you for speaking up too. It's not as easy as it appears evidently. Who else is a beachfront homeowner that agrees the beach is for all?! Speak up like beacheart, please. WE SALUTE YOU!!!
YOU are soooo very !!! I think every Walton County beach should have a public access. Anyone else for that?
Last edited:
The below was sent out to all South Walton Community Council members regarding beach rights.
Being a member of this organization helps keep me informed of what is happening in Walton County.
Please visit their website and consider joining.
http://www.southwaltoncc.org
Dear SWCC Member,
As you will recall from my previous email, the public?s right to use the dry sand beach was a topic on the county commission agenda Tuesday night. The county attorney presented a Memorandum he had prepared on the topic. He discussed the Tona-Rama case and the efforts of the City of Destin to pass an ordinance establishing the right of the public to use the dry sand beach. (none of the proposed Ordinances passed). I have provided some information on the Tona-Rama case at the end of this email for those who want more information. It is the leading case on this issue in Florida.
The county attorney highlighted four options for the commissioners to consider. They were as follows:
1. Do nothing and let a private citizen take the issue to court
2. ?Light the fuse? and prepare an ordinance establishing the doctrine of customary use under Tona-Rama
3. ?Detonate the bomb? and authorize a class action lawsuit to determine whether customary use applies
4. Seek an easement from private beach front property owners for public access and use of the beach. A
proposed incentive is to see if the property owner can get some tax relief due to the easement.
The county attorney suggested Option 2 and/or 4. After some discussion of the options, the Board indicated it wanted more information on Option 2 and 4. The county attorney or other appropriate person will be making another presentation in the future.
As was indicated last night this is only an issue in those areas where a landowner?s title goes to the high water mark and no beach nourishment program had taken place. The issue of beach ownership and access in the Miramar beach area is being decided in a court case dealing with rights under beach nourishment.
Customary Use of the Beaches and the Private Property Issues:
A Synopsis of Published Materials
Here is a synopsis from some of the materials I have found on this issue. This does not purport to be a legal analysis which can be relied on by members of the public or property owners in determining any individual rights. To the contrary, it is simply a synopsis culled from some of the leading legal articles written and cases decided on the issue. I have included my sources at the end. A copy of the county attorney?s memorandum can be obtained from the Planning Department at the courthouse in South Walton.
1. Recognized Rights of Use.
There seems to be recognition that the public can use the ?wet? area of the beach, that is, the area between the high and low tide. The land under the high water mark belongs to the state and is held in trust for the people.
The public can use the dry sand beach owned by the state or county or otherwise dedicated to public use in plats or deeds. (In several areas of Walton County, the upland property owners do not own to the high water mark. (e.g., areas of Blue Mountain Beach, Seagrove, etc.))
The issues have arisen when a member of the public attempted to use the dry sand beach in an area in which a private individual claims ownership of the beach and has taken action to remove the public from the beach.( It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of beachfront owners have not interfered with public use of the beach.)
2. Other States.Three states, Oregon, Texas and Hawaii recognize the ?doctrine of customary use? to preserve the public?s rights of beach access and use of the dry sand beach. Generally, this doctrine recognizes the ancient right of the public to use the beaches.
3. The Florida Supreme Court. One of the leading Florida cases is The City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama. This is a 1974 Florida Supreme Court case in which the Plaintiff claimed the construction of an observation tower interfered with the public?s prescriptive right to use the beach. The court found that the Plaintiff had not established all of the technical requirements for a ?prescriptive easement? to exist in favor of the public. The court did, however, establish what some have called a ?doctrine of customary usage?.
Here are a few quotes from that case:
We recognize the propriety of protecting the public interest in, and
right to utilization of, the beaches and oceans of the State of Florida. No part
of Florida is more exclusively hers, or more property utilized by her people
than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of,
Florida?s oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court.
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 has served as a thoroughfare and haven for fishermen and bathers, as well as a place of recreation for the public. The interest and right of the public to the full use of the beaches should be protected.
If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner may make any use of his property, which is consistent with such public use and not 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.
The Tona-Rama case did not establish a blanket right of customary use on all of Florida?s beaches. That case and subsequent court cases have recognized the doctrine of customary use but have indicated that its application to a particular area of beach must be determined on a case-by case basis. In other words, the person or entity trying to establish the right must show that the public use of a particular beach area has been ?ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, etc?.
4. The U.S. Supreme Court.Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach (1994). In a previous case (the ?Thornton? case), the Oregon Supreme Court had decided that the public?s use of the dry sand beach was so ?ancient, customary and notorious? that it created a presumption of notice of the public?s right to purchasers of beach front property. The court stated: ?when plaintiffs took title to their land, they were on notice that exclusive use of the dry sand areas was not a part of the ?bundle of rights? that they acquired?. The decision in essence clearly established the right of the public to use the beaches which had always been historically used by the public. The Thornton decision was challenged in the Stevens case. In the Stevens case, a city denied a permit to build a replacement seawall based on an ordinance that prohibited building on the beach. The property owners claimed the city?s action constituted a taking of their property. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Oregon Supreme Court?s decision in the Thornton case. (Justice Scalia dissented)
5. Walton County. The Walton County Beach Activities Ordinance currently states that ?the highest value should be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of life of and on the beach and water bodies and the public right of access to the beach and water bodies in order to enjoy the beach and water bodies as a source of pleasant, safe, clean and wholesome recreation.?
It then provides: ?This Ordinance makes no finding of fact that the public either has or has not customarily used any particular piece of gulf front property beach.?
Some Helpful Resources:
?Florida Beach Access: Nothing But Wet Sand?? by S. Brent Spain published in the 1999 Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law
?Laying Out An Unwelcome Mat to the Public Beach Access? by Jennifer A. Sullivan published in the Spring 2003 Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law
City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc. 294 So. 2nd 73 (Fla. 1974)
Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach 510 U.S. 1207 (1994)
FLA. CONST. art. X, Sec. 11
Memorandum from the County Attorney presented to the county commissioners on Oct. 9th, 2007. ?Public Beach Access: Public Use of the Dry Sand According to the Doctrine of Custom?
The South Walton Community Council, Inc.
Anita Page
Executive Director
Being a member of this organization helps keep me informed of what is happening in Walton County.
Please visit their website and consider joining.
http://www.southwaltoncc.org
Dear SWCC Member,
As you will recall from my previous email, the public?s right to use the dry sand beach was a topic on the county commission agenda Tuesday night. The county attorney presented a Memorandum he had prepared on the topic. He discussed the Tona-Rama case and the efforts of the City of Destin to pass an ordinance establishing the right of the public to use the dry sand beach. (none of the proposed Ordinances passed). I have provided some information on the Tona-Rama case at the end of this email for those who want more information. It is the leading case on this issue in Florida.
The county attorney highlighted four options for the commissioners to consider. They were as follows:
1. Do nothing and let a private citizen take the issue to court
2. ?Light the fuse? and prepare an ordinance establishing the doctrine of customary use under Tona-Rama
3. ?Detonate the bomb? and authorize a class action lawsuit to determine whether customary use applies
4. Seek an easement from private beach front property owners for public access and use of the beach. A
proposed incentive is to see if the property owner can get some tax relief due to the easement.
The county attorney suggested Option 2 and/or 4. After some discussion of the options, the Board indicated it wanted more information on Option 2 and 4. The county attorney or other appropriate person will be making another presentation in the future.
As was indicated last night this is only an issue in those areas where a landowner?s title goes to the high water mark and no beach nourishment program had taken place. The issue of beach ownership and access in the Miramar beach area is being decided in a court case dealing with rights under beach nourishment.
Customary Use of the Beaches and the Private Property Issues:
A Synopsis of Published Materials
Here is a synopsis from some of the materials I have found on this issue. This does not purport to be a legal analysis which can be relied on by members of the public or property owners in determining any individual rights. To the contrary, it is simply a synopsis culled from some of the leading legal articles written and cases decided on the issue. I have included my sources at the end. A copy of the county attorney?s memorandum can be obtained from the Planning Department at the courthouse in South Walton.
1. Recognized Rights of Use.
There seems to be recognition that the public can use the ?wet? area of the beach, that is, the area between the high and low tide. The land under the high water mark belongs to the state and is held in trust for the people.
The public can use the dry sand beach owned by the state or county or otherwise dedicated to public use in plats or deeds. (In several areas of Walton County, the upland property owners do not own to the high water mark. (e.g., areas of Blue Mountain Beach, Seagrove, etc.))
The issues have arisen when a member of the public attempted to use the dry sand beach in an area in which a private individual claims ownership of the beach and has taken action to remove the public from the beach.( It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of beachfront owners have not interfered with public use of the beach.)
2. Other States.Three states, Oregon, Texas and Hawaii recognize the ?doctrine of customary use? to preserve the public?s rights of beach access and use of the dry sand beach. Generally, this doctrine recognizes the ancient right of the public to use the beaches.
3. The Florida Supreme Court. One of the leading Florida cases is The City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama. This is a 1974 Florida Supreme Court case in which the Plaintiff claimed the construction of an observation tower interfered with the public?s prescriptive right to use the beach. The court found that the Plaintiff had not established all of the technical requirements for a ?prescriptive easement? to exist in favor of the public. The court did, however, establish what some have called a ?doctrine of customary usage?.
Here are a few quotes from that case:
We recognize the propriety of protecting the public interest in, and
right to utilization of, the beaches and oceans of the State of Florida. No part
of Florida is more exclusively hers, or more property utilized by her people
than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of,
Florida?s oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court.
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 has served as a thoroughfare and haven for fishermen and bathers, as well as a place of recreation for the public. The interest and right of the public to the full use of the beaches should be protected.
If the recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to mean high tide has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, such use, as a matter of custom, should not be interfered with by the owner. However, the owner may make any use of his property, which is consistent with such public use and not 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.
The Tona-Rama case did not establish a blanket right of customary use on all of Florida?s beaches. That case and subsequent court cases have recognized the doctrine of customary use but have indicated that its application to a particular area of beach must be determined on a case-by case basis. In other words, the person or entity trying to establish the right must show that the public use of a particular beach area has been ?ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute, etc?.
4. The U.S. Supreme Court.Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach (1994). In a previous case (the ?Thornton? case), the Oregon Supreme Court had decided that the public?s use of the dry sand beach was so ?ancient, customary and notorious? that it created a presumption of notice of the public?s right to purchasers of beach front property. The court stated: ?when plaintiffs took title to their land, they were on notice that exclusive use of the dry sand areas was not a part of the ?bundle of rights? that they acquired?. The decision in essence clearly established the right of the public to use the beaches which had always been historically used by the public. The Thornton decision was challenged in the Stevens case. In the Stevens case, a city denied a permit to build a replacement seawall based on an ordinance that prohibited building on the beach. The property owners claimed the city?s action constituted a taking of their property. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Oregon Supreme Court?s decision in the Thornton case. (Justice Scalia dissented)
5. Walton County. The Walton County Beach Activities Ordinance currently states that ?the highest value should be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of life of and on the beach and water bodies and the public right of access to the beach and water bodies in order to enjoy the beach and water bodies as a source of pleasant, safe, clean and wholesome recreation.?
It then provides: ?This Ordinance makes no finding of fact that the public either has or has not customarily used any particular piece of gulf front property beach.?
Some Helpful Resources:
?Florida Beach Access: Nothing But Wet Sand?? by S. Brent Spain published in the 1999 Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law
?Laying Out An Unwelcome Mat to the Public Beach Access? by Jennifer A. Sullivan published in the Spring 2003 Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law
City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc. 294 So. 2nd 73 (Fla. 1974)
Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach 510 U.S. 1207 (1994)
FLA. CONST. art. X, Sec. 11
Memorandum from the County Attorney presented to the county commissioners on Oct. 9th, 2007. ?Public Beach Access: Public Use of the Dry Sand According to the Doctrine of Custom?
The South Walton Community Council, Inc.
Anita Page
Executive Director
Thanks for the information, ecopal. I just have to copy my very favorite parts. 
Other States.Three states, Oregon, Texas and Hawaii recognize the “doctrine of customary use” to preserve the public’s rights of beach access and use of the dry sand beach. Generally, this doctrine recognizes the ancient right of the public to use the beaches.
the Oregon Supreme Court had decided that the public’s use of the dry sand beach was so “ancient, customary and notorious” that it created a presumption of notice of the public’s right to purchasers of beach front property. The court stated: “when plaintiffs took title to their land, they were on notice that exclusive use of the dry sand areas was not a part of the ‘bundle of rights’ that they acquired”. The decision in essence clearly established the right of the public to use the beaches which had always been historically used by the public.
The Walton County Beach Activities Ordinance currently states that “the highest value should be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of life of and on the beach and water bodies and the public right of access to the beach and water bodies in order to enjoy the beach and water bodies as a source of pleasant, safe, clean and wholesome recreation.
and finally...
”No part
of Florida is more exclusively hers, or more property utilized by her people
than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of,
Florida’s oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court.
Thanks again, ecopal.
Other States.Three states, Oregon, Texas and Hawaii recognize the “doctrine of customary use” to preserve the public’s rights of beach access and use of the dry sand beach. Generally, this doctrine recognizes the ancient right of the public to use the beaches.
the Oregon Supreme Court had decided that the public’s use of the dry sand beach was so “ancient, customary and notorious” that it created a presumption of notice of the public’s right to purchasers of beach front property. The court stated: “when plaintiffs took title to their land, they were on notice that exclusive use of the dry sand areas was not a part of the ‘bundle of rights’ that they acquired”. The decision in essence clearly established the right of the public to use the beaches which had always been historically used by the public. The Walton County Beach Activities Ordinance currently states that “the highest value should be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of life of and on the beach and water bodies and the public right of access to the beach and water bodies in order to enjoy the beach and water bodies as a source of pleasant, safe, clean and wholesome recreation.
and finally...
”No part
of Florida is more exclusively hers, or more property utilized by her people
than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of,
Florida’s oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court.
Thanks again, ecopal.
Last edited:
Thanks for the information, ecopal. I just have to copy my very favorite parts.
Other States.Three states, Oregon, Texas and Hawaii recognize the ?doctrine of customary use? to preserve the public?s rights of beach access and use of the dry sand beach. Generally, this doctrine recognizes the ancient right of the public to use the beaches.
The Walton County Beach Activities Ordinance currently states that ?the highest value should be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of life of and on the beach and water bodies and the public right of access to the beach and water bodies in order to enjoy the beach and water bodies as a source of pleasant, safe, clean and wholesome recreation.
and finally...
?No part
of Florida is more exclusively hers, or more property utilized by her people
than her beaches. And the right of the public of access to, and enjoyment of,
Florida?s oceans and beaches has long been recognized by this Court.
Thanks again, ecopal.
Dear seacrestkristi, Thanks for taking the time to make such a concise and spirited summary.
I was told by a Sheriff deputy that they are directed to remove anyone from the beach at the request of a beach front owner.
Based on this detailed SWCC summary it appears that such action is not justified and suggests that the Sheriff is unfairly taking sides against the public.
If a private beach front owner hinders the public from using the beach it would seem to me that they should be the ones in trouble with the law.
How does one file a trespass charge to someone who is trespassing on public property? :funn: