The Butler Act was a law from the 1920s that allowed waterfront property owners to get title to the land under the water next to their property if they made improvements to it. This law was repealed later on, but it still affects the ownership of underwater land that was improved before the repeal. In a recent court case, a decision was made that dredging (digging out mud and sand from the water) does not count as a permanent improvement under the Butler Act. This goes against what another court had decided before. The Florida Supreme Court will likely have the final say on this issue. The courts in Florida have been debating whether dredging constitutes a permanent improvement under the Butler Act, which determines who has ownership of submerged lands. The courts have ruled in various cases that dredging can be considered an improvement, but it depends on the specific circumstances. The Fourth District Court of Appeal initially ruled that dredging did constitute an improvement, but then changed its decision on rehearing. The court’s decision was not based on whether the city needed the submerged lands for dredging, but rather on a strict interpretation of the Butler Act. However, this decision ignored previous rulings and the actual practical implications of not having title to the submerged lands. The court said that there’s no Supreme Court case that says dredging and building piers counts as a permanent improvement under the Butler Act. But there’s also no Supreme Court case that says it doesn’t. The Supreme Court did say in a different case that dredging makes the land usable and helps with commerce, which supports the idea of looking at each case individually to see how dredging affects other improvements. The Fourth District Court disagreed with the decisions in Jacksonville Shipyards and Key West, saying they didn’t consider all the important factors. The court argued that the state, not the landowner, owns submerged land, so dredging to maintain a marina should be allowed. However, the court also pointed out that the state now charges a lot for leases of submerged land and permission to dredge, which could make it difficult for landowners to use their waterfront property. This issue is still being debated, and it’s unclear how it will be resolved by the Supreme Court. In the Holland and Jacksonville Shipyards case, the court took a case-by-case approach to balance the old laws with the new perspective on progress and preservation. This seems to be the best way to encourage commerce and navigation while considering the state’s changing priorities. It’s ironic that those who invested in the old policies may now have to pay for the new ones.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/dredging-up-the-butler-act/
Leave a Reply