According to the Wall Street Journal, in "Florida, property owners can own land up to the waterline, but the submerged land belongs to the state. Since the passage of a 1961 state law, officials have dumped sand into eroded areas, restoring the beaches." The property owners argued that the state's claim of title to the restored beach qualified as a "taking" and they were entitled to compensation. The state has treated restored beaches as public property, since they exist because of state action and public funds.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the court, said that the opinion turned on the distinction between "accretions" and "avulsions." "Accretions" are "gradual and imperceptible changes to the shoreline", while "avulsions" are sudden and obvious changes in a property's contours."
Justice Scalia explained that "formerly submerged land that has become dry land by avulsion continues to belong to the owner of the seabed (usually the state)."
The court split 4-4 on the judicial takings issue -- whether a court action can create a "taking" of private property. Some have commented that the 4-4 decision on this issue will prompt more litigation in the future.
For the text of the Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection opinion, click here.
For access to brief and the transcript of the oral argument, click here.
For the SCOTUSblog post, click here.
For the Wall Street Journal article, click here.
For the Washington Post article, click here.
For the NPR story, click here.
Posted: 06/21/2010
