50-Year Beach Case Study

both the very gradual nature of this particular continuous physical process and the Corps' promises to restore the littoral flow of sand, this taking situation had not stabilized by 1986--six years before the landowners filed suit. The statute of limitations does not bar this action.”2 In other words, because the Corps promised and then delayed their proposed sand transfer plant in 1988, the statute of limitations could not be used to prevent the case, because it is only good for more than six years2 from either the original tort or, in this case, a promise to fix the tort. Pitman set the precedent for the Owen Case, which prevented the use of navigational servitude as an argument against their case. In the end, the Federal appeals court reversed …show more content…
Having had the opportunity to read about and observe the implementation of the 50-year beach project1 take place from the beginning to the present, I can attest that there has been an obvious improvement to the erosion of the shoreline. As of May 15, 2009, 2.8 million cubic yards of sand have been replaced out of the 6.6 million that were lost because of the Canaveral Harbor Project5. Hand in hand with the beach renourishment, there has been a marked increase in the size of the beach, in some places from tens of feet wide to hundreds of feet.10 In addition, there has been both a marked increase in beach visitors and record numbers of sea turtle nests along the beaches.11 Interestingly, the original 50-year long beach renourshment project left out a 8 mile stretch of beach due to an off shore reef.1 The results of this has led to the continued erosion of sand that could be detrimental to the environment in that area. In hopes that this situation never happens again, it would be good to go over laws that prevent this sort of destruction from …show more content…
United States were heavily dependent on the lawsuits that were previously brought against the erosion of private property on shorelines. This case was a 50 year long legal battle that ended up with the Army Corps of Engineers paying a large settlement. From what I have researched, I feel the added support of 300+ plaintiffs, which included entire cities, was a significant force that was essential to finally pushing the court to rule in favor of the property owners. In the future as laws and people become more environmentally conscious, I wonder if we will see a reduction in cases like this because entities that propose and execute projects that can have significant environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the project itself will take those effects into consideration when planning; therefore, when the project gets executed, mitigations for environmental effects of the projects will get incorporated as a routine part of the project itself. This would help avoid future litigation along with the possible need to pay for both the mitigations and damage fees. Since the law, has been more thoroughly defined I would not be surprised if the government requires extensive surveying of shorelines before future projects can take place. As I continue to visit my home town where this took place, I can enjoy the fact that our beaches will continue being revitalized over the next 30+ years. Yet, it remains to be seen what happens