water.
49
Reliction applies to lands that were once covered by waters, but that have since become
uncovered by the gradual recession of the waters.
50
Riparian owners have the common law right to receive accretions to their lands, so long
as the deposits were not of the riparian owner’s own doing.
51
The Florida Supreme Court in Bd.
Of Trs. Of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., in recognizing
the mean high water line as the dividing line rule between upland ownership and state sovereign
land in the context of accretion and relictions stated that “[a]ny other rule would leave riparian
owners continually in danger of losing access to water which is often the most valuable feature
of their property, and continually vulnerable to harassing litigation challenging the location of
the original water lines.”
52
In Save our Beaches, the First District Court of Appeal held that
landowners are entitled to the accretion if caused by the state.
53
Additionally, the court in Ford
v. Turner, held that unless excepted, the title to accretion or reliction to soil passes with the title
to the land to which accretions are appurtenant.
54
4. Riparian Rights of Non-waterfront Owners
Private riparian rights are not limited to owners of direct waterfront properties, but may
be held by owners of property which is not directly adjacent to navigable waterways or more
generally, by the public at large.
55
For example, it is common for Developers to reserve riparian
rights for non-waterfront property owners within the development.
56
Such reservations are
usually created through easements located on the properties of other waterfront owners.
57
These
easements are a frequent source of conflict since typically, the non waterfront owners must
physically cross his neighbor’s property to access the water.
58
In Cartish v. Soper, a plat indicated that for all lots within a subdivision, “each owner
ha[s] an easement of passage for ingress to and egree[sic] from the waters of Boca Ciega Bay.”
59
A dispute arose when the fee simple waterfront lot owner planted a hedge across a portion of his
property, thus, partially obstructing the reserved access easement to the water.
60
The Cartish
court, in rejecting the argument that riparian easement rights cannot be created by implication,
held that “insofar as riparian rights are necessary to or consistent with the purposes of the
easement, they are impliedly granted to appellees and, as a corollary, reserved from the appellant
fee owners.”
61
Thus, the court held that an unobstructed walkway through the easement was
included within an “easement of passage for ingress to and egress from the waters.”
62
The riparian rights which accompany easements can be created by reservation as opposed
to created expressly.
63
The 2007 decision in Brannon v. Boldt, clarified Cartish by defining
under similar circumstances, what riparian rights are necessarily implicit to an “easement for
ingress and egress” reserved for non-waterfront lot owners.
64
The court held that in the absence
of a detailed easement which delineates specific rights, that an easement for ingress to and egress
from the water includes the ability to apply for a permit to build a dock, right to cross the
property in a reasonable amount of time in order to access any area below the mean high water
mark, and the right to cross the property in order to launch a small boat, canoe, or flotation
device.
65
However, this type of easement does not imply the right to fish from the shore or to
remain on the property for extended periods of time.
66