NationStates Jolt Archive

Just got the following from my little bro:
America's Shifting Ground
As Beaches Creep In, Ownership Disputes Erupt

by David Baron
June 21, 2008



All Things Considered, June 17, 2008 · Global warming is raising the ocean level and moving shorelines landward. With seaside communities at risk of inundation, some scientists say America needs to plan an orderly retreat from the coast. But if you think such a retreat will be easy, consider the saga of one home on the Gulf of Mexico.

The Sand Castle

Surfside, Texas, is a small beach town south of Houston. There are no fancy condos here, no high-rise developments. The town, with just one traffic light, is mainly rows of cottages on tidy lawns. At 809 Beach Drive, a sky-blue house sports a sign that displays its name: the Sand Castle.

Brooks and Merry Porter bought the Sand Castle a quarter-century ago for the family to use and to rent out for income.

"We wanted a fixer-upper, because that's what we could afford," says Brooks Porter.

"We were looking for a house that needed somebody to care about it," adds Merry.

The Sand Castle needed a lot of care — it was a wreck — but you couldn't beat the location.

"We had sand dunes and salt grasses growing in front of our house," recalls Brooks Porter. And just beyond the dunes was the beach.

An Encroaching Beach

Since then, Surfside has seen some of the worst erosion on the Texas coast. The dunes are gone. So is the salt grass. The house now sits at the water's edge, stranded like a beached whale.

A whale on stilts, that is.

"The house is up out of the ground by a good 10 feet," says Brooks Porter, as he walks beneath the home. Seashells and seaweed litter the sand. "The water — you can tell that occasionally it's going to come up underneath the house."

But Brooks Porter says it's not the water that worries him. It's the state of Texas.

The Porters have been engaged in a decade-long struggle with the state government, and it's a fight that may foreshadow battles in other coastal areas. At issue: What happens when the public beach moves onto private property?

In Texas — and, to varying degrees, in other states — the beach is essentially a park.

Public vs. Private

As former Texas legislator A. R. "Babe" Schwartz puts it, "You can't go out and build a house on a state park." And, he adds, you can't keep a house on a state park even if the house was there first and the park moved under it.

Schwartz is an author of the Texas Open Beaches Act, a 50-year-old law that declares the beach a public way.

"If you've got any piece of your structure on what is state land," he says, "then you're not entitled to keep it there."

That's what the state told Brooks Porter and some of his neighbors back in the late 1990s. Because the beach had moved inland onto their lots, they had to remove their homes from their property.

Porter said no. He and some neighbors hired a lawyer.

Houston attorney Ted Hirtz represented the homeowners at more than a dozen hearings in district court beginning in 2001. He contended that the houses shouldn't have to be removed from the beach, because they didn't interfere with the public use of the beach.

"The public can still sunbathe around them," Hirtz argued in court. "The surfers can still surf. No one is adversely affected."

That argument failed. The judge ruled that the homes violated the law and would have to go. Eventually.

For the time being, the judge said the houses could stay while the case was on appeal, but he barred the homeowners from making any repairs. So when an especially high tide knocked out sewer and water pipes several years ago, Brooks and Merry Porter couldn't reconnect them.

That means no using the bathroom in the Sand Castle. "Makes it difficult for spending the night — for just anything," says Merry. But the Porters remained undeterred.

Who Is Responsible?

They pressed another argument with the state. They said it's unfair for the government to punish them, because the government created this predicament.

Coastal erosion — here and elsewhere — is not a purely natural phenomenon. Government projects like dams, jetties, and ship canals can rob the shore of sand, and studies show that's what happened at Surfside. State officials came to town to address that issue and others in the fall of 2006.

"There are those who say that this erosion is caused by manmade activity. I don't disagree," Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson told a crowd assembled at a Surfside meeting hall. "There are those that say, well, it's because of global warming. There are those that say all these other reasons. I'm not going to argue against that or in favor of that. But the question is, what do we do today?"

Patterson offered a solution. He said the state would try to slow the erosion by putting a million dollars' worth of sand on the beach, to help keep more houses from ending up by the water in the future.

But as for the homes already on the beach? He said it's too late to save them. In fact, he said, they have to go to make way for the sand. "The front row is in the way of anything we can do to preserve the other rows," he said.

Patterson offered a solution there, too. He said the state would pay the cost of moving homes from the beach onto inland lots. More than a dozen homeowners accepted the offer, but 14 houses remain on the beach, and among these holdouts are Brooks and Merry Porter.

A Constitutional Fight

They say the state's offer was inadequate. The state refused to pay them for their land.

"Both the Texas and the United States constitution spell it out, that you cannot take property from individuals or from families without adequate compensation," says Brooks Porter.

The state says it's not taking anyone's property — the Gulf of Mexico is — but this constitutional argument is the basis of the Porters' continuing lawsuit, which is headed toward a state appeals court and possibly beyond.

"We and some of the other people will fight this, if need be, all the way to the Supreme Court," he pledges.

How this case gets resolved could set a precedent far beyond Texas. What if rising seas threaten one day to swamp skyscrapers in Manhattan or entire towns in Florida? Whose responsibility will it be to move buildings out of the way? Who will take the hit for the lost property value?

Meanwhile, in Surfside, children still play around the homes on the beach. They scoop sand into buckets, upend the buckets to build towers, and adorn the towers with shells and feathers. Then the tide turns, and the castles of sand melt into the sea.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91586603&sc=emaf

I grew up in this area.Lots of interesting questions wrapped up in this fight...

That's ridiculous. They can't be blamed if the beach has moved onto their land. They brought it, it's theirs to keep. That Act ought to be repealed.

With all the property rights, government intrusion, eminant domain, and environmental issues in this one, only one newb reply?

With all the property rights, government intrusion, eminant domain, and environmental issues in this one, only one newb reply?

of course

It seems odd that the Act wouldn't have defined a set location for where this park was.

This is always the gamble that property owners take in common-law nations. Riparian rights (rights to land abutting water) are affected by accretion. Your freehold title can be dimished by erosion or diluvion (advance of the water's edge). It can also be expanded by alluvion or recession.

So you have a lakeside property. The water bed is generally owned by the Crown/state/what have you...not by the property owners of the freeholds abutting the water. Depending on your freehold, you generally own a bit of the beach...sometimes to the edge of the water, sometimes a bit less. If you own to the water, and the water receeds, your property gets bigger. If the water rises, your property gets smaller.

If you don't take this into account when you build, you should be slapped with frozen trouts until you wake up to reality.

It seems odd that the Act wouldn't have defined a set location for where this park was.

When you're dealing with a body of water, you don't set the location...the water defines it.

If the State is willing to spend a million $ on trying to stave of the water, why not buy the place on a conpulsary purchase? It's gota be cheaper huh, and the house is going into the sea ultimatly anyhoo.

When you're dealing with a body of water, you don't set the location...the water defines it.So then if you own a piece of private property on a beach and the beach rises, does your property shift back an equal amount?

Well once your private property becomes a beach (and wasn't a beach before) your best bet is to pack up and leave anyway, no mater who will own the land. Now while it would be immoral to pass along all the problems of global warming to future generations, property rights of costal areas will have to be settled in the future since it is unclear exactly what all will be going under water.

So then if you own a piece of private property on a beach and the beach rises, does your property shift back an equal amount?

To reap the benefits of accretion...specifically alluvion, the recession of the water's edge, the process has to be 'gradual and imperceptible'. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a natural process either, but the landowner can't be the cause of the accretion.

So for example...the natural tidal patterns are not gradual and imperceptible. You don't suddenly own a bunch more beach area just because the tide goes out. But if the waters recede gradually, yes, your property does expand IF your title extends to the edge of the water.

Keep in mind, if the public beach area is set at a certain width...say, eight feet wide...and the water rises, that public beach space shifts, and could encroach onto your property. If you don't have land rights right up to the water, you can still benefit from alluvion, but you still have to take that eight feet into account.

Of course, statute can change these common law principles, but it sounds like they are being applied pretty consistently here.

Well once your private property becomes a beach (and wasn't a beach before) your best bet is to pack up and leave anyway, no mater who will own the land. Now while it would be immoral to pass along all the problems of global warming to future generations, property rights of costal areas will have to be settled in the future since it is unclear exactly what all will be going under water.

I feel the same way about those who own property on the edge of bodies of water as I do about those who build anywhere erosion is inevitable. That feeling is 'don't be so fucking stupid'.

A bunch of rich people here in Edmonton built along the river valley and a bunch of their houses started sliding. They claimed the builders or the people who sold them the land never told them it was dangerous to built right up to the edge of a cliff overlooking a river (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Platt_Michael/2008/02/19/4858243-sun.php).

A few metres further back and Muriel Skinner's dream home might still be standing.

Instead, because no one stopped the Edmontonian from building too close to a 40-metre deep ravine, Skinner's home collapsed in a property disaster blamed on crumbling soil and bad planning.

Shut. Up.

Fair enough, the city should never have allowed the construction in the first place, but to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of someone OTHER than yourself, who made the decision to build there? In a case like this where erosion is simply a fact, it's trout-slapping time.

I have searched deep within me to sympathize with people who choose to own property on beaches, dunes or other forms of transient earth. All I found was some belly button lint and thirty-seven cents.

How many levels of dumb would one have to be to purchase property that statistically speaking isn't gonna be there in a few decades only to complain a few decades later because your property is disappearing? I might have felt some sympathy if the law had changed during their ownership, but the laws that apply are 50 years old and they've owned the house for 25. They should count their lucky stars that a hurricane didn't just blow by and do two decades of coast shifting in about 2 days.

I love mud, but I'm not dumb enough to build my house in it. :p

I love mud, but I'm not dumb enough to build my house in it. :p

There was some debate among us about the above.

I'm sensing a real lack of sympathy here :P

I'm sensing a real lack of sympathy here :P

They're idiots who were offered a subsidy to move inland. What sympathy?

I'm sensing a real lack of sympathy here :P

Heh... ;)

My reply to my bro's email:

Interesting article re Surfside on NPR today. I have mixed feelings on this, since I like property rights but cant help but think that most of these folks have probably embraced irresponsible environmental policy.


Indeed.


"We had sand dunes and salt grasses growing in front of our house," recalls Brooks Porter. And just beyond the dunes was the beach.

(>.<)

"Yes, we went and bought a beach house built in a location where building was likely to cause erosion. Now that that erosion's happened, we're pissed off!"

But there are some interesting questions brought up there. :)

Note for those unaware: building among the dunes and salt grass is a known cause of beach erosion...

Most people are causing environmental damage when they build...that's simply a fact. I don't think these people 'deserve' ruination, but I do think that they needed to take into account the very real and realised possibility that building on the water's edge would eventually become problematic.

Most people are causing environmental damage when they build...that's simply a fact. I don't think these people 'deserve' ruination, but I do think that they needed to take into account the very real and realised possibility that building on the water's edge would eventually become problematic.

We aren't even talking about ruination here. This was a summer rental. This wasn't their one and only year-round home.

To reap the benefits of accretion...specifically alluvion, the recession of the water's edge, the process has to be 'gradual and imperceptible'. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a natural process either, but the landowner can't be the cause of the accretion.

So for example...the natural tidal patterns are not gradual and imperceptible. You don't suddenly own a bunch more beach area just because the tide goes out. But if the waters recede gradually, yes, your property does expand IF your title extends to the edge of the water.

Keep in mind, if the public beach area is set at a certain width...say, eight feet wide...and the water rises, that public beach space shifts, and could encroach onto your property. If you don't have land rights right up to the water, you can still benefit from alluvion, but you still have to take that eight feet into account.

Of course, statute can change these common law principles, but it sounds like they are being applied pretty consistently here.Ah, I see. I suppose as long as the location of the park is set so that it extends to the edge of the water that the law is being applied consistently.

*Re-examines theory behind the song "Ocean Front Property in Arizona"* :p

Sorry folks. Shit happens. Besides I've always liked Texas' public beach laws. I like the fact that Texas has no private beaches. All public. If people are going to build in unstable areas, the risk is all theirs. That goes for the fools that keep building on floodplains.

Sorry folks. Shit happens. Besides I've always liked Texas' public beach laws. I like the fact that Texas has no private beaches. All public. If people are going to build in unstable areas, the risk is all theirs. That goes for the fools that keep building on floodplains.

And people who put trailer parks in tornado alley.

I mean...God can only resist for so long. It's like sticking your head in a lion's mouth for kicks.

And people who put trailer parks in tornado alley.

I mean...God can only resist for so long. It's like sticking your head in a lion's mouth for kicks.

God? Seriously?

So what - they deserve what's coming to them? They should have known better, and chose a place approved to live in by God?

All human civilization is inherently unstable. I live in a pyrogenic climatological area. (And it's 90 degress out today.) This means that naturally speaking, fire is part and parcel of this ecology. Every so often a fire comes along and burns people's houses down, kills people. God approves? It's our fault for not living in someplace less fire-hazard? Like San Francisco. Oops, they have earthquakes. Or the Midwest. Oops, tornados and flooding. Or any other coast. Oops, global climate change will fuck that up eventually. 90% of the world's population lives in coastal areas. It's all good to sit here high and mighty - apparently you live in the Nimbus where no natural disasters can possibly affect you (now why don't 90% of the worlds' population follow your wise planning?) - and say "it's their risk," like that means anything. Yeah, it's their risk. Also a woman's risk when she gets pregnant. Does that mean when a woman dies from birth complications I chuckle self-righteously about it, how I have no sympathy and how God Did It?

Seriously, should I? Because I've been looking for ways to be more of an asshole and I could use your input. :)

God? Seriously?

Stop and think.

How serious could I be invoking a deity I don't believe in?

tl/dr :)

My one unsettled issue here is that of the property suddenly finding itself on state land.

Fair enough, building close to the water's edge brings with it and entirely forseeable probability that you will lose property as the water rises. Then again, you can be the gambling type who hopes the waters will receed, giving you more land than you started with.

But if it gets to the point that you lose your land because of accretion, there should be some compensation if the state wants your property gone. I can see saying, okay, no more building...no additions, no decks, no garages...but totally forbidding repairs is silly. Grandfather the owners in, let them make the upkeep at the very least. Or just buy them out.

And people who put trailer parks in tornado alley.

I mean...God can only resist for so long. It's like sticking your head in a lion's mouth for kicks.

That's just karma.

If a mobile home stays stationary for too long, a karmic imbalance forms that can only be corrected by the sudden catastrophic movement of the mobile home; most likely in several simultaneous directions. *nod*

Texas state law has said for quite sometime that anything below the high tide mark belongs to the state. The folks should have been aware of this when they bought the land.

Texas state law has said for quite sometime that anything below the high tide mark belongs to the state. The folks should have been aware of this when they bought the land.

Granted, but it's not the case that they built on state land and are wanting compensation now. Just because the land under their house is now the state's doesn't mean that the state should suddenly be entitled to the house. That would be unjust enrichment.

Granted, but it's not the case that they built on state land and are wanting compensation now. Just because the land under their house is now the state's doesn't mean that the state should suddenly be entitled to the house. That would be unjust enrichment.

The state offered to compensate them for the expenses of moving their houses to an in-land lot. They want compensation for the land.

But if it gets to the point that you lose your land because of accretion, there should be some compensation if the state wants your property gone. I can see saying, okay, no more building...no additions, no decks, no garages...but totally forbidding repairs is silly. Grandfather the owners in, let them make the upkeep at the very least. Or just buy them out.

I agree. If the government has a certain amount of land past the waterline as beach land and that ends up taking over someone's bought land, eminent domain should kick in and the owners should be compensated. If the government chooses to grandfather them in, that's fine too. It is certainly not unheard of for people to be allowed to continue living in homes on state parks and the like, although I would think it would be unusual in a case like this.

Just my opinion. =)

Texas state law has said for quite sometime that anything below the high tide mark belongs to the state. The folks should have been aware of this when they bought the land.

State law also generally allows for a certain amount of land around a road that belongs to the government. If the road expands - ie. they add extra lanes - you lose some of your land. But the government does have to compensate you for it, even though you knew it could happen.

The state offered to compensate them for the expenses of moving their houses to an in-land lot. They want compensation for the land.

They won't necessarily have the money for inland lot if they aren't compensated for the loss of their current lot. It isn't as if the government offered them new land inland, now is it?

Not many seem to have sympathy for this people. But what about others? I think there's a place in the UK where erosion is about 2 metres a year, but that it wasn't always like that. I think some practices further down the coast caused the beach in front of the cliffs to disappear, and thus accelerating the rate of erosion to its current ridiculous rate.

What about these people? People who through no fault of their own or lack of foresight are losing their land to the sea.

I think the place I'm thinking of is in Yorkshire somewhere.

They won't necessarily have the money for inland lot if they aren't compensated for the loss of their current lot. It isn't as if the government offered them new land inland, now is it?

That's their problem.

thats what they get for living in Texas :mad:

SNIP

I was reminded of that story as well then I realized that English cliffs have that tendency and that the government has spent millions already trying to save the properties and this has been going on since the 50s-ish

Just got the following from my little bro:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91586603&sc=emaf

I grew up in this area.Lots of interesting questions wrapped up in this fight...


For fear of giving too much information I happen to know the Porters and a few of their neighbors. To start these problems were not really caused by global warming or rising sea levels. It has been caused by erosion with has been accelerated by man-made activities in the area. Construction and other things that have caused the erosion of the beaches in this area.

Unfortunately, the Texas Open Beaches Act makes all beaches a park. Basically, You can't have a situation where someone purchases a beach and fenses it off so that only they can use it. There are no private beaches in Texas. This is a good thing in that it allows everyone to use the beaches, but has some unintended consequences when situation like this occur.

Keep in mind that the beach didn't just appear under their house, it was a slow process that could have been prevented if local and state authorities actually cared to try. And this is where I stand on the issue. reason their house is now on the beach is the faulty of local and state authorities and is therefore there responsibility. The state of Texas owes these people for their loss due to their inaction. The state's actions to this point are inexcusible and unacceptable, and every Texan, or US Citizen should be extremely angered of this.

First of all, Government doesn't owe them anything specific. It was their mistake. And they got their share of fun.

On the other hand, arbitrarily taking the land away is a violation of private property rights. It may be legal, but then it means the law is flawed - it was created before climate change was known to come and affect borders.
It is their property, they've bought it. Anything else is overriding of their rights. If they can keep their home there, they should be allowed to do so - for instance, if it takes building some reinforcement to delay the water, or putting that house on columns, or whatever.

However, all as long as they can do it and keep it legal, i.e. observe the environmental laws.

First of all, Government doesn't owe them anything specific. It was their mistake. And they got their share of fun.

the government owes them because the government is responsible for approving the canals, jetties, and other such developement that caused the accelerated erosion.

This was not caused by climate change. Studies of the erosion in the area categorize the erosion as man-made and not naturally occuring. This has nothing to do with rising water levels, or anything of the sort. The goverment approved projects that altered the flow of water through the area and therefore created unnatural erosion patterns. The projects were done with little or no regard to the affects they would have on the surrounding environment.

On the other hand, arbitrarily taking the land away is a violation of private property rights. It may be legal, but then it means the law is flawed - it was created before climate change was known to come and affect borders.

I agree with this. The government should not have the right to claim land previously owned by someone else, even if the park, or beach, in this case, moves under the home. In such a case the government should allow them to keep their home in normal operating condition as long as it doesn't interfere with the use of the park, or should compensate them for it.

If they can keep their home there, they should be allowed to do so - for instance, if it takes building some reinforcement to delay the water, or putting that house on columns, or whatever.

This particular home is on stilts 15 feet of the ground. It is in no way interferring with the use of the beach. At this time, the State courts have forbidden the Porters from making any repairs to the home. So when the water broke, they were unable to make the necessary repairs. This has made the home unusable.

However, all as long as they can do it and keep it legal, i.e. observe the environmental laws.

As I said, the Porters are not allowed to maintain the home and are forced to allow it to fall apart around them.

First of all, Government doesn't owe them anything specific. It was their mistake. And they got their share of fun.
Ehh, wrong.
The government owes them for a number of reasons, but it all boils down to the Open Beaches Act. Declaring all beach a "park" makes it specifically the government's job to keep up the beach and prevent erosion. Not only that, but if the beach just happens to find its way under your house, and you are required to move by the law, the government owes you just compensation for your private property. They can still kick you off, but they can't do it without compensation.

That's ridiculous. They can't be blamed if the beach has moved onto their land. They brought it, it's theirs to keep. That Act ought to be repealed.

I would say that it should fall under eminent domain. That's better for everybody.

A) If the government wants to take away a person's property for public use it has that right, but has to pay the fair market value of the property.

B) If the government gives these people a buyout they can, hopefully, afford to relocate. Otherwise they can't and their property will soon be uninhabitable anyway.

The government gets the public beach and the homeowners don't become the homeless. Or second-homeless in this case.
It's win-win and fair play all around.

A) If the government wants to take away a person's property for public use it has that right, but has to pay the fair market value of the property.


What's fair market value of land that is about to become uninhabitable?

A bunch of rich people here in Edmonton built along the river valley and a bunch of their houses started sliding. They claimed the builders or the people who sold them the land never told them it was dangerous to built right up to the edge of a cliff overlooking a river (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Platt_Michael/2008/02/19/4858243-sun.php).

Whew. Us Yankees aren't the only ones afflicted with moronic members of the population who fail to understand concepts like 'gravity'.

Regarding the OP, it appears to be a case of beach erosion caused by state and federal projects affecting the currents and causing the shange in topography. If that is the case, it was not in any way the fault of the homeowner that his land was eroded, and he deserves compensation. I would think that a fair compromise would be a payment equal to the highest property tax assessment from the past decade, or transporting the house inland and providing a similarly-valued property on which to relocate the house. It is also the right of the homeowner to keep the land and fight for what's his if he so chooses.

Regarding good places to live, I recommend the inland northwestern US up in eastern Washington, North Idaho, and Western Montana. The neonazis are almost all gone even up there and the only natural hazard is forest fires.

What's fair market value of land that is about to become uninhabitable?

I'm guessing it would be counter acted by it being a beach property :)

What's fair market value of land that is about to become uninhabitable?

What would you have to pay the government to make it give up a comparable patch of a state or federal park?

I have a plan...don't live near the damn water.

Sucks for the people though. It should still be their land.

What would you have to pay the government to make it give up a comparable patch of a state or federal park?

That would depend on statute.