wrobert
Beach Fanatic
Personally, I figure it will go the other way, or least very centrist. His last act on the way to the White House.
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
-
Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.
Customary Beach Use
- Thread starter wrobert
- Start date
Personally, I figure it will go the other way, or least very centrist. His last act on the way to the White House.
TooFarTampa
SoWal Insider
Stop that! :nono1:
BeachSiO2
Beach Fanatic
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.
Last edited:
SHELLY
SoWal Insider
...from your lips to the Democratic candidate's ear.
wrobert
Beach Fanatic
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.
Bob Hudson
Beach Fanatic
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
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
Last edited:
BeachSiO2
Beach Fanatic
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:
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:
BeachSiO2
Beach Fanatic
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.
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
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.
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
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.
