BEACH RESTORATION IN THE BALANCE: Supreme Court justices wade into local quagmire (with LINKS)

While Supreme Court justices ponder oral arguments by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. today, many in Florida are pondering the fate of beach renourishment projects statewide.

“If the Supreme Court rules that there was a taking in this case, there will be big problems throughout the state,” said Roland Guidry of Oceania Condominiums.

And while the case before the court sprung from the completed 2006 beach renourishment project in Walton County, a new restoration project being planned for Okaloosa Island and Destin may be affected by the court’s ruling.

That project has been halted by new lawsuits from Guidry and others regarding the computation of the Municipal Services Benefit Unit, a fee imposed on beachfront property owners to pay for county beach restoration projects.

While Guidry said the court has already issued a verbal ruling in the case he’s involved in, he thinks the judge is waiting to see what the Supreme Court decides before recording that ruling in the public record. He also noted that Okaloosa County commissioners may be waiting on the decision of the highest court in the land, as the Erosion Control Line has been established for beachfront properties but has yet to be made public record, according to Guidry.

Guidry said that once the ECL is recorded in the public record, beach renourishment projects must begin within six months and be completed within 24 months. The restored beach must then be maintained in perpetuity, according to Guidry, who wonders if the county is concerned that beginning beach restoration would be impossible in the event of a ruling for the property owners.

The concern by some is that a win for the property owners could mean that the state would have to compensate property owners affected by beach renourishment projects. Every beachfront property owner whose beach has been restored would be entitled to the compensation set by the court, and that could make beach restoration projects unaffordable.

But D. Benjamin Barros, a law professor at Widener University who edits a blog on property law, said that is unlikely.

“Even if the court finds that there was a taking here they’re going to ask themselves if the petitioners’ property values have really been damaged,” said Barros, who will attend the court proceedings. “It could be that even if the petitioners win, they would only be awarded nominal damages of $1.”

Rather than ending beach renourishment statewide, a win for the property owners in this case would likely force the state to revisit how they conduct beach restoration. Destin City Manager Greg Kisela said the state would have to look at their policy and make some fundamental changes, specifically regarding the ECL.

“Most (beachfront property owners) assert that they own to the Mean High Water Line and should continue to own to the Mean High Water Line,” Kisela said. “When the ECL is established, their property line has been affected.”

And Destin Mayor Craig Barker agreed, saying “I believe that if state law did not require the establishment of an ECL, the property owners would stand behind beach renourishment.”

_____

To read more coverage from The Log on the case, click here.

To see photos from the disputed restoration project, click here.

To read an analysis on how the court might rule, click here.

For everything you ever wanted to know about the case and source materials, click here.

____