Opinion ID: 1111929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ownership of Artificial Accretions

Text: We first address the Trustees' contention that the state owns all accretions from artificial causes. It is significant to note that the law, as it has developed, does not distinguish between natural and artificial accretions or relictions when the abutting waterfront owner did not cause the improvements which resulted in the formation of additional land. A recent A.L.R. annotation summarized: [I]t is also a widely accepted proposition that the fact that such [accumulations] were initiated, accelerated, or otherwise influenced by artificial, manmade structures has no effect on the general rule of accretion and reliction. Annot., 63 A.L.R.3d 249, 255-56 (1975). More than a century ago, the United States Supreme Court addressed this question and stated: Whether it is the effect of natural or artificial causes makes no difference. The result as to the ownership in either case is the same. The riparian right to future alluvion is a vested right. It is an inherent and essential attribute of the original property. The title to the increment rests in the law of nature. It is the same with that of the owner of a tree to its fruits, and of the owner of flocks and herds to their natural increase. The right is a natural, not a civil one. County of St. Clair, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) at 68-69 (emphasis added). More recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachussetts, in addressing the same type of question, in Michaelson v. Silver Beach Improvement Association, 342 Mass. 251, 173 N.E.2d 273 (1961), stated: The fact that `the building of the breakwaters by public authority may have aided the operation of natural causes in the deposit of the accretions ... does not modify the general rule that the littoral proprietor is entitled to his proportionate share of such accretions.' Id. 173 N.E.2d at 275 (quoting Burke v. Commonwealth, 283 Mass. 63, 186 N.E. 277, 279 (1933)). Our Second District Court of Appeal considered title to artificially caused accretions in Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). In that case, accretion resulted from offshore wooden groins placed as part of a public beach stabilization program. The court rejected an argument to distinguish between natural and artificial accretions and awarded the accreted property to the upland littoral owner. As the court explained: Were the state to gain title to this accreted land, we believe that riparian titles around the state would be in jeopardy of unmarketability. Id. at 213. Speaking about this rule, a Florida commentator on water rights states: The reasoning supporting this rule becomes obvious when the equitable rights of the riparian owner are examined. It would be unjust to allow one to lose his riparian rights merely because a nearby owner erected a groin or dike. F. Maloney, Water Law and Administration 389. In the instant case, the trial court expressly found that neither the waterfront owner nor anyone on its behalf constructed the jetty which, together with natural causes, caused the accretion. The law is clear that, under these circumstances, the riparian or littoral owner has a vested right to new lands formed as a result of the accretion or reliction. The fact that such accretions or relictions occurred in part because of artificial improvements does not affect the owner's title to those lands provided the owner has not constructed the improvements which caused the accretions. We note, however, that the common law has never allowed a waterfront owner to receive title to artifically created accretions when he caused those additions to his land by improvements. In this circumstance, title to the accreted land remains with the sovereign. The district court in Medeira Beach explains: [S]ince land below the ordinary high water mark is sovereignty land of the state, to permit the riparian owner to cause accretion himself would be tantamount to allowing him to take state land. 272 So.2d at 212. In that case, before determining the waterfront owner was entitled to the accreted land, the district court noted that the owner was not responsible for the placement of wooden groins which caused the accretions.