Supreme Court ruling may have impact on beachfront owners' rights

By Kelly Wolfe

The U.S. Supreme Court in June affirmed a ruling that said when public money is used for beach re-nourishment, the beach then becomes publicly owned, despite
deeds indicating buyers owned the beach down to the high water mark.

The ruling is confusing to landowners like Merrilee Lundquist of Ocean Ridge, who said she signed an agreement allowing the state to re-nourish the beach when
needed, but she wasn’t told at that time she would be giving up ownership of
the land. Plus, Lundquist said, what happens when the re-nourished beach has
washed away.

“At first, it was like a road in front of our house,” Lundquist said in the months after the state poured sand onto her property. “Now, all that sand is gone.”

The Supreme Court, in an 8-0 vote June 17, rejected a challenge by six homeowners in Florida’s Panhandle who argued that a beach-widening project was essentially
a taking of property without “just compensation,” as the Constitution requires.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not return calls seeking comment.

Justice John Paul Stevens recused himself from the case, presumably because he owns a waterfront condo in Fort Lauderdale.

Daniel Bates, director of environmental enhancement and restoration for Palm Beach County, said he was glad the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, and said he
hasn’t had many complaints from property owners on this coast, anyway.

“In our experience, property owners support our re-nourishment agreements,” he said.

There was only one property owner in recent memory that didn’t, Bates said. But that man eventually sold his property to Merrilee Lundquist, who did agree to allow
for re-nourishment.

The homeowners who filed suit in Destin wanted the state to pay them undetermined compensation for “taking’’ their property, which Florida law had long
recognized as extending to the water line at high tide. New sand along seven
miles of storm-battered beach had essentially deprived homeowners of the
exclusive beach they once enjoyed, they argued.

Lundquist said she doesn’t like the way the lawsuit painted beachfront homeowners.

“I think beach owners are good stewards and why not,” Lundquist said. “I go down and pick up garbage all the time.”

Lundquist said she loves living on the beach, and doesn’t mind when people lay out in the sun on what is essentially her property. But it often doesn’t end there.

“I came home one day to find a teenage couple in my pool,” she said. “I had a $600 gate broken. People have stolen my plants. It’s not frightening, but it’s part
of being there.”

Bates said both Jupiter and Ocean Ridge are up for beach re-nourishment projects within the next two to three years.

Views: 103


You need to be a member of The Coastal Star to add comments!

Join The Coastal Star

© 2020   Created by Mary Kate Leming.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service