Coastal Engineering - Who Owns the Beach?

Different states have different laws on who owns the beach. You need to search state by state, country by country to get that answer correct.

Who should own the beach? I can see both ends. I grew up on Lake Ontario, almost an ocean if viewed from the beach. The part of the lake I lived on was in NY State, and by that law, the property owner owned the beach and into the water to a point were the water reached 8 feet deep. Beyond 8 feet deep, it belonged to the state. That meant anyone could bring a boat up to my shore as close as they wanted. But I had the right to put a dock, (non-perminate) into the water for a distance where the depth of the water was less then 8 feet deep. (any perminate dock, needed state approval before construction and they almost never gave it.)

This gave me the privacy I paid for, water access that was fully my control, but at the same time, allow fishermen unlimited access to fish or boat or what ever.

The relevant local authority has maintenance and protection responsibility for a beach, such matters being funded by local taxation supplemented by national funding topped up in exceptional circumstances via various non-governmental agencies responsible for coastal protection.

As a beach has negligible value as a negotiable asset beyond its amenity value to the visitor, the matter of who owns it is usually only of academic interest.

Dear PWS,

We meet again.

I would disagree that " a beach has negligable value".

We own a short length of river bank / beach which gives us the right to fish or launch boats etc. Our ownership ends at low water mark, which with a 7 metre tidal range can leave a big area of beach.

I know of houses which have the right to have steps down to privately access the privately owned beach. This adds probably £150 000 to the values of those houses.

As for the farmer who owns the beach and runs his oyster farm from that foreshore - I imagine that his ownership of the beach is worth a great deal to him.

Hugh Mattos

Chartered Engineer

I would like to disagree, as well, on your statement that "a beach has negligible value". Beaches are habitat to different species and are nesting habitat for different bird species and sea turtles. It is important to keep this habitat available for the different species.

In some Central America states, by a 1890 law the ocean beaches belong to the goverment 200 meters inland up from the highest tide. Lakes, lagoons, river and remote islands are included. Beach foot traffic is unrestricted by law. No fences please. There are some land deeds that predate the law back to Spanish colonial times which were exempted and remain so to this date. A lot of beach property is leased by municipalities to private individuals for home building and recreation business. But you don´t really own the land just enjoy the posession.

You are right in your statements about Central America laws, I am Municipal engineer in Bocas del Toro island, Panama Republic and we have many troubles with US citizens that buy beach properties here and dont know that by constitutional mandate all the beaches, rivers and water courses are for public use and you have to permit free access to this sites nor meant this is in your property, and property not is the correct word, in beaches and islands territories for commercial projects the gov. only give you a use license for 40 or 60 years, after that the goverment will give another license or take the territory again... in beaches you have to let obstacles free 24 meters from the high tide and then put your fence and "tutti mundi contenti"....

Al Gore invented the beach and he owns it. Even when it proceeds to change location soon.

Agreed!!!

In my experience the more private the beach the less likely there is to have freely available public access - and thus the better for the wildlife to live undisturbed.

How do you compare the "value" of a foreshore as recreation for the people who visit it, or the "value" of the foreshore to those who make their living from it, against the "value" as habitat for wildlife watched by the favoured few allowed access?

Hugh Mattos

Chartered Engineer

Very good point .It's a sad fact that some things are mutually exclusive . You can please some of the people some of the time but ..... etc. I go to Scotland A lot and the beaches up there rival the Caribbean.Happily people up there seem to have lot of respect for the environment and each other. Probably because there is still a sense of community.

In the UK the queen and the National Trust own most of it .There are relatively few private owners.The level of high and low water marks is also a defining factor.In Scotland there is no law of trespass , so in theory you can go anywhere.

As far as a beach is a public amenity goes ,I have sympathy with the viewpoint "..property is theft" - we should all have access and share responsibility. However in practice an identified owner makes management and responsibility more accountable.

The beach 50 yards from my house gets covered in crap from people who don't give a damn (mainly dog owners and fishermen). The local council (with central government funds ) organize ongoing beach replenishment ('cos of long-shore drift) and other coastal protection.If your into coastal engineering the UK has loads of houses that are now sitting precariously on cliff tops.Still cliff falls are great for fossil hunters like myself.

Saying that there are " relatively few private owners" of beach in the UK is not too accurate?

We own the "foreshore" which is defined as the river bank down to low tide line. This is clearly marked on our deeds and gives us the right to fish, boat etc unhindered.

However, the Duchy of Cornwall - i.e. for all you people from far off lands, the estate of Prince Charles - claim to own to high water mark - which makes for interesting discussions.

Owning a beach is great if you have the right, historically, to keep it private. However, in the UK the historic right to walk, play etc on a private beach may be pretty sound. In which case the beach owner is responsible for everybody's safety, but may not charge for access to the beach. Hence the expensive car parks etc.

Hugh Mattos

Chartered Engineer

Hi Hugh , I wasn't signed in before. You're right my phrase was a bit misleading , but I think it is true that a small number of individual organization control a disproportionate length of coast. I'll have to look into this . One thing is for sure , for 5 miles west of where I live a practising soldier would probably shoot me on the beach !

After a quick check , the crown owns all seabed (up to ) mean low water mark. Does that means paddling at low water is trespass ? Also the Crown Estates Commission own around 50% of total foreshore. I'm not sure of the Duchy's status , and suspect the National Trust is a quango.Some of the vagueries of British law would baffle anyone.

It depends on the local laws. In Texas the beach (which is part of the state hi-way department) starts at the vegetation line. If you build a house on the beach behind the vegetation line and then a storm moves the vegetation line back, you have to tear your house down - no houses on the highway! I believe that Texas has the right laws on beach access.

Of course, it is the only highway system that I know of, that you can camp on, build a fire on, or hold a hell of a party on!

In the Province of New Brunswick there remain a large number of legacy titles to the midsummer low water mark (when described from the landward side). These date from a couple of centuries ago.

Subsequent practice changed the laws with regard to ownership of beaches - limiting private ownership to the mid-summer high water 'mark'. The province/country picked up title to some beaches in this way - but legacy rights remain in effect - creating examples where individuals whose land title grants him or her to MSLW, and who subdivides but granting the new owner only to MSHW.

So we have some "grantors" who own ONLY beach, and only between Low and High water lines.

Ownership here has been heavily "attached" with restrictions so the expression ownership is actually a misuse of the concept - however they are allowed to exist by deed right and are taxed as if they have value.

In the UK it is the crown estates who own the beach. the environmental agency has some say, the local council enforce local bylaws, the ordinary concerned citizen has no say at all, it will always be you liability what ever the problem, the cost will be the tax payers and the right to say no to anything at all the crown estate. The national trust do own administer some sections but it is only because the crown lets them spend loads of money to maintain certain beauty spots (they pay the crown as well) just for good measure.