Not sure it’ll be any different this time around, but at least there’s a chance.
The Texas Supreme Court appeared closely divided Tuesday during a second round of arguments in a turf battle over who controls the beach after a storm moves the vegetation line landward.
The hearing came five months after the court ruled in a 6-2 decision that the state cannot take private property for a public beach because of a sudden change to the coastline.
[…]
Justice Dale Wainwright, for one, questioned whether a beachfront property owner should reasonably expect to lose his or her land to the state because of the ever-shifting vegetation line.
He also suggested that the public right to the dry beach was too expansive.
“What is the limit on how far this easement can migrate or roll?” Wainwright asked Assistant Solicitor General Daniel Geyser, representing the state.
Geyser argued that people buy property along the coast at their own risk and with the knowledge that the rolling easement is common law.
Justice Paul W. Green went further, asking if the state thinks it’s unreasonable for property owners to build along the beach.
“Not at all,” Geyser said, “because they enjoyed the use of the property while it has not actually been swallowed by the water. It’s important to remember that if the water rises up and submerges the land, title shifts to the state. But it doesn’t mean they’re unreasonable for locating there. It’s just a risk.”
I’ve blogged about this before and I don’t know what else there is to say at this point other than I agree with the state’s position. I still don’t understand how the original ruling in this case is compatible with the constitutional amendment we passed two years ago. While I don’t expect the Supreme Court to rule differently this time, I do note that there are two Justices who were not part of that original ruling, so I suppose there is the potential for change. We’ll see how it goes.