Opinion ID: 1747260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The First District's Decision

Text: As stated earlier, the First District determined that the Beach and Shore Preservation Act results in an unconstitutional taking of upland owners' rights to accretions and to contact with the water. In its opinion, the First District essentially employed the following three-step analysis: (1) it found sections 161.191 and 161.201, which fix the shoreline boundary and suspend the operation of the common law rule of accretion but preserve the littoral rights of access, view, and use after an ECL is recorded, facially unconstitutional; (2) then, because eminent domain proceedings did not occur as required by section 161.141, it found that the Act was unconstitutionally applied by the Department in this case; and (3) because littoral rights were unconstitutionally taken, it found that property rights had been unreasonably infringed, making it necessary for the Department to provide satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest pursuant to rule 18-21.004(3). Save Our Beaches, 31 Fla. L. Weekly at D1177, ___ So.2d at ____. We disagree. We find facially constitutional the provisions of the Act that fix the shoreline boundary and that suspend the operation of the common law rule of accretion but preserve the littoral rights of access, view, and use after an ECL is recorded. [11] Therefore, we hold that the Act, on its face, does not unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of littoral rights without just compensation. In explaining our disagreement with the First District, we first discuss how the First District failed to consider the doctrine of avulsion. The doctrine of avulsion is pivotal because, under that doctrine, the public has the right to reclaim its land lost by an avulsive event. We then address why, in the context of this Act, the littoral right to accretion is not an issue. Thereafter, we explain that there is no independent littoral right of contact with the water under Florida common law. Finally, we discuss why our decision in Belvedere is not applicable to the inquiry involved in this case.