Opinion ID: 2829230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Texas Case Law

Text: The Court states it is “unaware of any case law permitting such an expansive interpretation of easement rights that would so unduly burden the underlying servient estate.” ___ S.W.3d ___ (requiring easements to be re-established over new dry beach after each avulsive event). I submit that Texas case law not only recognizes the existence of public beachfront access easements but further that they “roll” with the movements of their dynamic, natural boundaries. 1 4 Before Luttes , the public assumed it had unrestricted access to use and enjoy the beach. 1 5 After Luttes , in response to public concern over its right to access Texas beaches, the Texas Legislature passed the OBA to ensure that Texas beaches remained open for public use. Challenged five years later, the Houston Court of Civil Appeals found that a public easement existed on the West Beach of Galveston Island, forcing landowners to remove barriers and structures that prevented the public’s access to and use of the public beach. Seaway Co. v. Attorney General , 375 S.W.2d at 940 ; see also Moody v. White , 593 S.W.2d 372, 376-79 (finding public easement over dry beach on Mustang Island and requiring removal of structure preventing public access). In the years following the passage of the OBA, the shoreline naturally and predictably moved both gradually and suddenly. Texas courts have repeatedly held that once an easement is established, it expands or contracts (“rolls”), despite the sudden shift of the vegetation line. See Feinman , 717 S.W.2d at 109–10 (after Hurricane Alicia); Arrington v. Tex. Gen. Land Office , 38 S.W.3d at 765 (after Tropical Storm Frances); Brannan v. State , No. 01-08-00179-CV, 2010 WL 375921,  (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 4, 2010, pet. filed ) (after unusually high tide or “bull tide”); Matcha , 711 S.W.2d at 100 (after hurricane of 1983); Arrington v. Mattox , 767 S.W.2d at 958 (after Hurricane Alicia). In short, Texas law has adopted “the rolling easement concept.” Feinman , 717 S.W.2d at 110–11 . The Court’s refusal to follow existing Texas law means that every hurricane season will bring new burdens not only on the public’s ability to access Texas’s beaches but on the public treasury as well.