Opinion ID: 2829231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dynamic Public Beachfront Easements

Text: The first certified question asks if Texas recognizes “a ‘rolling’ public beachfront access easement, i.e. , an easement in favor of the public that allows access to and use of the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico, the boundary of which easement migrates solely according to naturally caused changes in the location of the vegetation line, without proof of prescription, dedication, or customary rights in the property so occupied?” 566 F.3d at 504. We have never held that the State has a right in privately owned beachfront property for public use that exists without proof of the normal means of creating an easement. And there is no support presented for the proposition that, during the time of the Republic of Texas or at the inception of our State, the State reserved the oceanfront for public use. In fact, as discussed above, the Texas Legislature expressly disclaimed any interest in title obtained from the Jones and Hall Grant after our State was admitted to the Union. See Section I.A.2, supra ; see also Seaway Co. , 375 S.W.2d at 928 (“On November 28, 1840, the Republic of Texas issued its patent to Levi Jones and Edward Hall to 18,215 acres of land on Galveston Island. This grant covered all of Galveston Island except the land covered by the Menard Grant covering the east portion of the Island.”). Therefore, considering the absence of any historic custom or inherent title limitations for public use on private West Beach property, principles of property law answer the first certified question. Easements exist for the benefit of the easement holder for a specific purpose. An easement does not divest a property owner of title, but allows another to use the property for that purpose. See Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn , 90 S.W.3d 697, 700 (Tex. 2002) (explaining that an easement relinquishes a property owner’s right to exclude someone from their property for a particular purpose) (citations omitted). The existence of an easement “in general terms implies a grant of unlimited reasonable use such as is reasonably necessary and convenient and as little burdensome as possible to the servient owner.” Coleman v. Forister , 514 S.W.2d 899, 903 (Tex. 1974). An easement appurtenant “defines the relationship of two pieces of land”—a dominant and a servient estate. See 7 Thompson on Real Property § 60.02(f )( 1), at 469 (David A. Thomas, ed. 2006). Because the easement holder is the dominant estate owner and the land burdened by the easement is the servient estate, the property owner may not interfere with the easement holder’s right to use the servient estate for the purposes of the easement. Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc. , 364 S.W.2d 196, 207 (Tex. 1963) (citation omitted); Vrazel v. Skrabanek , 725 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Tex. 1987). Easement boundaries are generally static and attached to a specific portion of private property. See Holmstrom v. Lee , 26 S.W.3d 526, 533 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (“Once established, the location or character of the easement cannot be changed without the consent of the parties.”); see also 7 Thompson on Real Property § 60.04(c )( 1)(ii), at 538–40. “As a general rule, once the location of an easement has been established, neither the servient estate owner nor the easement holder may unilaterally relocate the servitude.” Jon W. Bruce & James W. Ely, Jr. , The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 7:13, at 7-30 (2009). Therefore, a new easement must be re-established for it to encumber a part of the parcel not previously encumbered. See id. While the boundaries of easements on the beach are necessarily dynamic due to the composition of the beach and its constantly changing boundaries, easements for public use of privately owned dry beach do not necessarily burden the area between the mean high tide and vegetation lines when the land originally burdened by the easement becomes submerged by the ocean. They do not automatically move to the new properties; they must be proven. Like easements, real property boundaries are generally static as well. But property boundaries established by bodies of water are necessarily dynamic. Because those boundaries are dynamic due to natural forces that affect the shoreline or banks, the legal rules developed for static boundaries are somewhat different. See York , 532 S.W.2d at 952 (discussing erosion, accretion, and avulsion doctrines affecting property boundaries and riparian ownership in the Houston Ship Channel). The nature of littoral property boundaries abutting the ocean not only incorporates the daily ebbs and flows of the tide, but also more permanent changes to the coastal landscape due to weather and other natural forces. 1 5 Shoreline property ownership is typically delineated by boundaries such as the mean high tide and vegetation lines because they are easy to reference and locate. Sand and water are constantly moving and changing the landscape whether it is gradual and imperceptible or sudden and perceptible. Courts generally adhere to the principle that littoral property owners gain or lose land that is gradually or imperceptibly added to or taken away from their banks or shores through erosion, the wearing away of land, and accretion, the enlargement of the land. Id. at 952. Avulsion, as derived from English common law, is the sudden and perceptible change in land and is said not to divest an owner of title. Id. We have never applied the avulsion doctrine to upset the mean high tide line boundary as established by Luttes . 1 6 324 S.W.2d at 191. Property along the Gulf of Mexico is subjected to seasonal hurricanes and tropical storms, on top of the every-day natural forces of wind, rain, and tidal ebbs and flows that affect coastal properties and shift sand and the vegetation line. This is an ordinary hazard of owning littoral property. And, while losing property to the public trust as it becomes part of the wet beach or submerged under the ocean is an ordinary hazard of ownership for coastal property owners, it is far less reasonable to hold that a public easement can suddenly encumber an entirely new portion of a landowner’s property that was not previously subject to that right of use. See, e.g. , Phillips Petrol. , 484 U.S. at 482 (discussing the importance of “honoring reasonable expectations in property interests[ ,]” but ultimately holding the property owner’s expectations in that situation were unreasonable). Gradual movement of the vegetation line and mean high tide line due to erosion or accretion have very different practical implications. Like littoral property boundaries along the Gulf Coast, the boundaries of corresponding public easements are also dynamic. The easements’ boundaries may move according to gradual and imperceptible changes in the mean high tide and vegetation lines. However, if an avulsive event moves the mean high tide line and vegetation line suddenly and perceptibly causing the former dry beach to become part of State-owned wet beach or completely submerged, the private property owner is not automatically deprived of her right to exclude the public from the new dry beach. In those situations, when changes occur suddenly and perceptibly to materially alter littoral boundaries, the land encumbered by the easement is lost to the public trust, along with the easement attached to that land. Then, the State may seek to establish another easement as permitted by law on the newly created dry beach to enforce an asserted public right to use private land. It would be an unnecessary waste of public resources to require the State to obtain a new judgment for each gradual and nearly imperceptible movement of coastal boundaries exposing a new portion of dry beach. These easements are established in terms of boundaries such as the mean high tide line and vegetation line; presumably public use moves according to and with those boundaries so the change in public use would likewise be imperceptible. Also, when movement is gradual, landowners and the State have ample time to reach a solution as the easement slowly migrates landward with the vegetation line. Conversely, when drastic changes expose new dry beach and the former dry beach that may have been encumbered by a public easement is now part of the wet beach or completely submerged under water, the State must prove a new easement on the area. Because sudden and perceptible changes by nature occur very quickly, it would be impossible to prove continued public use in the new dry beach, and it would be unfair to impose such drastic restrictions through the OBA upon an owner in those circumstances without compensation. See Westgate, Ltd. v. State , 843 S.W.2d 448, 452 (Tex. 1992) (explaining the circumstances from which an action for inverse condemnation may arise). If the public has an easement in newly created dry beach, as with any other property, the State must prove it. Having divested title to all such West Beach property in the early years of the Republic, the State of Texas can only acquire or burden private property according to the law. Thus, a public beachfront easement in West Beach, although dynamic, does not roll. The public loses that interest in privately owned dry beach when the land to which it is attached becomes submerged underwater. While these boundaries are somewhat dynamic to accommodate the beach’s everyday movement and imperceptible erosion and accretion, the State cannot declare a public right so expansive as to always adhere to the dry beach even when the land the easement originally attached to is eroded. This could divest private owners of significant rights without compensation because the right to exclude is one of the most valuable and fundamental rights possessed by property owners. See Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. P’ship , 135 S.W.3d 620, 634 (Tex. 2004) (referring to the right to exclude as “‘one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property’”) (quoting Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 374, 393 (1994)). We have never held the dry beach to be encompassed in the public trust. See Luttes , 324 S.W.2d at 191–92 . On this issue of first impression, we hold that Texas does not recognize a “rolling” easement on Galveston’s West Beach. Easements for public use of private dry beach property do change along with gradual and imperceptible changes to the coastal landscape. But, avulsive events such as storms and hurricanes that drastically alter pre-existing littoral boundaries do not have the effect of allowing a public use easement to migrate onto previously unencumbered property. This holding shall not be applied to use the avulsion doctrine to upset the long-standing boundary between public and private ownership at the mean high tide line. That result would be unworkable, leaving ownership boundaries to mere guesswork. The division between public and private ownership remains at the mean high tide line in the wake of naturally occurring changes, even when boundaries seem to change suddenly. 1 7 The State, as always, may act within a valid exercise of police power to impose reasonable regulations on coastal property or prove the existence of an easement for public use, consistent with the Texas Constitution and real property law. The dissent would reach a different result by arguing the public has the right to use the dry beach regardless of the boundaries of private property or the constitutional protections accorded those rights. That approach would raise constitutional concerns. “To say that the appropriation of a public easement across a landowner’s premises does not constitute the taking of a property interest but rather . . . ‘a mere restriction on its use,’ . . . is to use words in a manner that deprives them of all their ordinary meaning.” Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n , 483 U.S. 825, 831 (1987) (citation omitted); see Elliott, 28 Baylor L. Rev . at 385–86 (“Since a simple legislative declaration of policy [such as declaring a right to an easement across private property], cannot provide the requisite due process, the affirmative policy statement of the Open Beaches Act, without more would appear patently unconstitutional. The legislature has apparently sought to avoid such constitutional problems by qualifying affirmatively-declared public rights with an interesting condition precedent. That condition is that the public must have already acquired these identical rights under the common law doctrines of prescription or dedication.”). According to the dissent, an easement could remain in the dry beach even if the land encumbered by the original easement becomes submerged by the ocean and the dry beach is composed of new land that was not previously encumbered by an easement. Its argument is likewise based on the premise that an alleged easement previously established did not just encumber the dry beach portion of Severance’s parcel, but that it encumbered the entire lot. This is inconsistent with easement law. See Holmstrom v. Lee , 26 S.W.3d 526, 533 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (“Once established, the location or character of the easement cannot be changed without the consent of the parties.”); 7 Thompson on Real Property § 60.04(c )( 1)(ii), at 538–40. While the specific use granted by an easement is a fundamental consideration, there is no law to support the dissent’s contention that an easement forever remains in the dry beach (i.e., can move onto a new portion of the parcel or a different parcel) absent mutual consent. See Jon W. Bruce & James W. Ely, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 7:13, at 7 -30 (2009). This would result in depriving oceanfront property owners of a substantial right (the right to exclude) without requiring compensation or proof of actual use of the property allegedly encumbered whenever natural forces cause the vegetation line to move inland so that property not formerly part of the dry beach becomes part of the dry beach. This argument blurs the line between ownership and right to use of a portion of a parcel—the dry beach—and is in tension with our decision in Luttes that set the boundary between State and privately owned property at the mean high tide line. See 324 S.W.2d at 191–92. The dissent further dismisses Severance’s grievance as a gamble she took and lost by purchasing oceanfront property in Galveston and argues that she would not be entitled to compensation even though an easement had never been established on the portion of her parcel that is now in the dry beach. It notes the OBA requirement of disclosure in sales contracts of the risk that property could become located on a public beach and subject to an easement in the future. See Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 61.025. This is incorrect for three reasons. First, beachfront property owners take the risk that their property could be lost to the sea, not that their property will be encumbered by a easement they never agreed to and that the State never had to prove. Second, putting a property owner on notice that the State may attempt to take her property for public use at some undetermined point in the future does not relieve the State from the legal requirement of proving or purchasing an easement nor from the constitutional requirement of compensation if a taking occurs. We do not hold that circumstances do not exist under which the government can require conveyance of property or valuable property rights, such as the right to exclude, but it must pay to validly obtain such right or have a sufficient basis under its police power to do so. See Nollan , 483 U.S. at 841–42 (noting that public use of private beaches may be a “good idea” but “if [the state] wants an easement across [private] property, it must pay for it”) . As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. explained, “[A] strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change.” Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393, 416 (1922). Third, simply advising in a disclosure that the State may attempt to enforce an easement on privately owned beachfront property does not dispose of the owner’s rights. Our holding does not necessarily preclude a finding that an easement exists. We have determined that the history of land ownership in West Beach refutes the existence of a public easement by virtue of continuous right “in the public since time immemorial, as recognized in law and custom, ” Tex . Nat. Res. Code § 61.001(8), and Texas law does not countenance an easement migrating onto previously unencumbered beachfront property due to the Hurricane. We do not have a sufficient record to determine whether an easement has been proven, and the question was not certified. See id. The public may have a superior interest in use of privately owned dry beach when an easement has been established on the beachfront. But it does not follow that the public interest in the use of privately owned dry beach is greater than a private property owner’s right to exclude others from her land when no easement exists on that land. A few states have declared that long-standing property principles give the state (and therefore, the public) the right to all beachfront property or the right to use even privately owned beachfront property ipse dixit . For example, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that the dry beach was subject to public use because the public use was inherent in the history of title to such lands. Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach , 854 P.2d 449, 456–57 (Or. 1993) (citing State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay , 462 P.2d 671 (Or. 1969)). The state of Oregon’s view is that private property owners along the beach “never had the property interests that they claim were taken” in the dry sand, the area between the high water line and vegetation line. Id. at 457. The Court explained “the common-law doctrine of custom as applied to Oregon’s ocean shores . . . is not ‘newly legislated or decreed’; to the contrary, to use the words of the Lucas court, it ‘inhere[s] in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance already placed upon land ownership.” Id. , 854 P.2d at 456 (quoting Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council , 505 U.S. 1003, 1004 (1992)). The Supreme Court of Hawaii has held that issuance of a Hawaiian land patent confirms only a limited property interest as compared to typical land patents on the continental United States. S ee Pub. Access Shoreline Haw. v. Haw. Cnty . Planning Comm’n , 903 P.2d 1246 (Haw. 1995) (noting that “the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawai’i”). New Jersey extends the public trust doctrine to encompass the dry beach as well as the wet beach. See Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea , 294 A.2d 47, 49 (N.J. 1972) (“[T]he public trust doctrine dictates that the beach and the ocean waters must be open to all on equal terms and without preference . . . .”); see also Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass’n , 471 A.2d 355, 365 (N.J. 1984). Unlike the West Beach of Galveston Island, these jurisdictions have long-standing restrictions inherent in titles to beach properties or historic customs that impress privately owned beach properties with public rights. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that a statute that recognized a general recreational easement for public use in the “dry sand area” (comparable to our dry beach), violates the takings provisions of the state and federal constitutions, except for those areas where there is an “established and acknowledged public easement.” Opinion of the Justices , 649 A.2d 604, 608 (N.H. 1994). The public trust ends at the high water mark and private property extends landward beyond that. Id. The Supreme Court of Idaho applied the public trust doctrine to Lake Coeur d’Alene and held that the public trust doctrine was inapplicable in an action to force owners to remove a seawall. State ex rel. Haman v. Fox , 594 P.2d 1093 (Idaho 1979). The private property at issue was obtained by patent from the U.S. Government in 1892 and the seawall was built above the mean high water mark of the lake. Id. A few Texas courts of appeals have reached results contrary to the holding in this opinion. In Feinman , the court held that public easements for use of dry beach can roll with movements of the vegetation line. 717 S.W.2d at 110–11. Feinman could find no continuous right or custom dating from “time immemorial” or even back to the origins of the Republic or the State of Texas as a basis to encumber private property rights along West Beach. Id. Feinman states that “[c] ourts have upheld the concept of a rolling easement along rivers and the sea for many years without using the phrase ‘rolling easement,’” and cites, but does not discuss, seven cases for its holding. 1 8 Id. at 110. Only one of the opinions is from a Texas court, Luttes , and neither it nor the other cited cases discuss rolling or migratory easements. Luttes established the landward boundary of title to the public trust along Gulf-front beaches. The Sotomura opinion is based on different common law notions of public rights to and limitations on private ownership of beaches in Hawaii, as discussed above. Cnty . of Haw. v. Sotomura , 517 P.2d 57, 61 (Haw. 1973). Feinman neither addressed the legal significance of the Jones and Hall grant on the question of public encumbrance on private beach properties of Galveston’s West Beach nor identified any basis in Texas law or history for a continuous legal right or custom on which to ground the existence of a migratory easement. One other appellate decision also recognizes a rolling easement, relying on Feinman . Arrington v. Tex. Gen. Land Office , 38 S.W.3d 764, 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). The first Texas case to address the concept of a rolling easement in Galveston’s West Beach is Matcha v. Mattox , 711 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e .). In 1983, Hurricane Alicia shifted the vegetation line on the beach such that the Matchas ’ home had moved into the dry beach. The court held that legal custom—“a reflection in law of long-standing public practice”—supported the trial court’s determination that a public easement had “migrated” onto private property. Id . at 101. The court reasoned that Texas law gives effect to the long history of recognized public use of Galveston’s beaches, citing accounts of public use dating back to time immemorial, 1836 in this case. However, the legal custom germane to the matter is not the public use of beaches, it is whether the right in the public to a rolling easement has existed since time immemorial. The Matcha court’s recognition of long-standing “custom” in public use of Galveston’s beaches misses the point of whether a custom existed to give effect to a legal concept of a rolling beach, which would impose inherent limitations on private property rights. As explained above, the original patent of Galveston’s West Beach from the Republic to Jones and Hall refutes the existence of custom, as private owners who purchased beach properties obtained title without limitation on private rights of ownership and without encumbrances for public use. We disapprove of courts of appeals opinions to the extent they are inconsistent with our holding in this case. See Arrington v. Tex. Gen. Land Office , 38 S.W.3d 764, 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Feinman , 717 S.W.2d at 108–11; Moody v. White , 593 S.W.2d 372, 379 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1979, no writ); Matcha , 711 S.W.2d at 98–100; See Neal E. Pirkle , Maintaining Public Access to Texas Coastal Beaches: The Past and the Future , 46 Baylor L. Rev. 1093, 1106–07 (1994) (questioning whether the rolling easement theory should apply to easements by prescription and dedication).