5 ms·

"some beaches are private" is actually incorrect - all beaches in California are public from the water to the high tide line.

awm 13y ago
I believe the only exception to this rule is Military property. Coronado (off of San Diego) beach is an example. Eventually you hit the navy base...
- dfc 13y ago
  You were concerned a lot of people were going to read this and then try to have a picnic on the beach and watch the newest BUDS class? I don't know about Coronado but at Dam Neck there is a fence that extends at least 150+ feet into the water clearly delineating the base. If the fence is not a dead give away there are signs every 20 feet on the fence that make it crystal clear that the other side of the fence is not a public beach.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Right, but it's good to point out the exceptions to the general rule that all beaches are accessible to the public. Especially in the context of Malibu where there are often wrong or misleading signs.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
waterside81 13y ago
Yeah you're probably right - I've probably been conditioned to think some are private because the access is restricted.
- beachstartup 13y ago
  he's not probably right, he's right. california beaches are public and protected. anyone can use them as long as they follow state law (regarding alcohol, fires, dogs, trash, etc.) the state takes it very seriously and that's why there's thousands of miles of clean shoreline for everyone to enjoy.
icebraining 13y ago
Sorry, I downvoted you by mistake, meant to upvote.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
In Hawaii they take it a step further and require that there be access to the coast for the public every N hundred feet. You can find some pretty cool ways down to the water in some of the more expensive neighborhoods.
- seszett 13y ago
  It's the same in France, including along rivers. But especially for rivers, homeowners often block access and it might be difficult to get them to open it.
- secabeen 13y ago
  They do that now in California, but there are a lot of areas with existing housing and no access. Often when a renovation or rebuild happens, they can add access, but then the owners try to mask the access as much as possible.
- genwin 13y ago
  I believe in Hawaii if such access doesn't exist, you may create it by jumping a fence or whatever. Property owners like to put KAPU (forbidden) signs alongside access paths, giving the impression that the path is forbidden when it's actually just the land on either side of the path. Resorts in Hawaii may be required to provide public access to the beaches they front. Some have public parking lots or other public amenities to direct the flow.
sk5t 13y ago
Question from an unfamiliar northeasterner: how public is the beach really if you have to flee the rising tide? Or are folks happy to pack it in after a few hours?
- plorkyeran 13y ago
  The high tide point isn't the same every day, but the public beach line is. On a typical day there's a decent amount of public beach left even at high tide.
  - cbordeleau 13y ago
    My understanding of mean high tide in California is the law does not specify a time frame for the mean. So how do you actually know where the MHTL is?
    - nobodysfool 13y ago
      Generally there's debris left from the high tide - seaweed and what not. It's usually pretty easy to tell.
      - cbordeleau 13y ago
        Yes but that would be the mean high tide of perhaps the last week. If a stormed rolled in, by your logic, the whole beach could be public property. Some states define the mean high tide as the mean over a 18.6-year period or Tidal Epoch. To my knowledge, California makes no such distinction.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The purpose of the beach being public isn't really sunbathers. It's a very old principle based on the idea that the waters and the land under them belong to the public, and that they should be accessible to people doing the fundamental things that require access to the water: fishing, washing clothes, etc.
jonnathanson 13y ago
Things get a little wonky on a few of the more elite private beaches in Malibu: Broad Beach and Carbon Beach, among others. On these beaches, erosion has basically eliminated 50% of the beachfront, such that the entire public strip is underwater at mid to high tide. It's exposed only at low tide. Hence, the beaches are de facto private for much of the day. This isn't intentional; it's just the result of environmental changes over the last few decades.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If the public land is the land between hightide and the water, shouldn't the public land be underwater during hightide by definition?
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    "If the public land is the land between hightide and the water, shouldn't the public land be underwater during hightide by definition?" Typically, there is some sand on the beach above the high tide line ("public dry sand easement" in zoning parlance). You're allowed to walk on this sand. This isn't the case on Broad Beach or Carbon Beach. At either of these beaches, there is no sand at all above the high tide line. Just a large seawall of rocks.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Seems kind of like a problem for everybody, not just the people not living there. Granted, the people living there can retreat to their homes while other people have to walk/drive home I guess, but it seems like basically a shitty deal for everyone. The only "defacto-private" thing in this situation is a shitty rock wall.
      - bmunro 13y ago
        The homes of the people living (or the rock wall) there are probably the cause of the lack of beach. Beaches are dynamic things, they get eroded during storms and are built up at other times. They can recede inland hundreds of metres over the years. Conversely, large amounts of sand can be deposited, extending the land well out into what used to be water. Humans putting houses, sea walls, groynes, bridges and other structures along the coast conflicts with the natural movements of the coast. In this case, if the houses were located further back from the beach, there would still be a beach there.
mjn 13y ago
> from the water to the high tide line That's what I've seen reported elsewhere. But this PDF from the state government claims that public access extends to the start of dune vegetation (where it exists) or 25 feet inland of the mean high-tide line otherwise, excluding in some cases a 10-foot buffer around authorized development. That would suggest a substantial portion of the beach is public, even above the high-tide line: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf edit: Some more digging turns up that the land up to the mean high tide line is publicly owned, but the right of public access may extend further landwards. In some cases the landowner is required to grant a 25-foot public-access easement above the MHTL, as a condition of getting a development permit. That appears to be what's happened in Malibu, or at least the PDF above is claiming so. In those cases the area above the MHTL is still technically private land, but the public is allowed to access it.
Alex3917 13y ago
"all beaches in California are public from the water to the high tide line." There is also a federal law that makes all navigable rivers open to the public up to the high water line. However, as far as I know there isn't any database that contains a list of all the rivers that are considered to be navigable, meaning that actually using this protection might require an expensive affirmative defense.
- abduhl 13y ago
  The Army Corp gives guidance on what defines a navigable waterway: http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr329.pdf http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/reg... It should be noted that rivers and streams shift over time and so there is no comprehensive list of navigable waterways.
- nkurz 13y ago
  Interesting. I hadn't realized there was an underlying federal law, since different states I've lived in have very different state laws as well. Lots of good information here: http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-who-owns.htm http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-who-owns.ht...
- trothoun 13y ago
  Even state supreme courts seem to sometimes have trouble determining what "navigable" means. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-218.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-218.pdf
- czbond 13y ago
  As a whitewater kayaker in Texas, I can concur with this saving us. But the police don't often know the federal law and will still harass or arrest you.
  - khafra 13y ago
    Also, federal law won't necessarily save you in court, unless you have the money and time to escalate. I took a traffic fine to court once, showed the judge copies of the federal regulation and photos of the area proving that the signage was invalidly placed, and he upheld the fine anyway--he literally said "I don't care."

awm 13y ago

I believe the only exception to this rule is Military property. Coronado (off of San Diego) beach is an example. Eventually you hit the navy base...

dfc 13y ago
You were concerned a lot of people were going to read this and then try to have a picnic on the beach and watch the newest BUDS class? I don't know about Coronado but at Dam Neck there is a fence that extends at least 150+ feet into the water clearly delineating the base. If the fence is not a dead give away there are signs every 20 feet on the fence that make it crystal clear that the other side of the fence is not a public beach.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Right, but it's good to point out the exceptions to the general rule that all beaches are accessible to the public. Especially in the context of Malibu where there are often wrong or misleading signs.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

waterside81 13y ago

Yeah you're probably right - I've probably been conditioned to think some are private because the access is restricted.

beachstartup 13y ago
he's not probably right, he's right. california beaches are public and protected. anyone can use them as long as they follow state law (regarding alcohol, fires, dogs, trash, etc.) the state takes it very seriously and that's why there's thousands of miles of clean shoreline for everyone to enjoy.

icebraining 13y ago

Sorry, I downvoted you by mistake, meant to upvote.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

In Hawaii they take it a step further and require that there be access to the coast for the public every N hundred feet. You can find some pretty cool ways down to the water in some of the more expensive neighborhoods.

seszett 13y ago
It's the same in France, including along rivers. But especially for rivers, homeowners often block access and it might be difficult to get them to open it.
secabeen 13y ago
They do that now in California, but there are a lot of areas with existing housing and no access. Often when a renovation or rebuild happens, they can add access, but then the owners try to mask the access as much as possible.
genwin 13y ago
I believe in Hawaii if such access doesn't exist, you may create it by jumping a fence or whatever. Property owners like to put KAPU (forbidden) signs alongside access paths, giving the impression that the path is forbidden when it's actually just the land on either side of the path. Resorts in Hawaii may be required to provide public access to the beaches they front. Some have public parking lots or other public amenities to direct the flow.

sk5t 13y ago

Question from an unfamiliar northeasterner: how public is the beach really if you have to flee the rising tide? Or are folks happy to pack it in after a few hours?

plorkyeran 13y ago
The high tide point isn't the same every day, but the public beach line is. On a typical day there's a decent amount of public beach left even at high tide.
- cbordeleau 13y ago
  My understanding of mean high tide in California is the law does not specify a time frame for the mean. So how do you actually know where the MHTL is?
  - nobodysfool 13y ago
    Generally there's debris left from the high tide - seaweed and what not. It's usually pretty easy to tell.
    - cbordeleau 13y ago
      Yes but that would be the mean high tide of perhaps the last week. If a stormed rolled in, by your logic, the whole beach could be public property. Some states define the mean high tide as the mean over a 18.6-year period or Tidal Epoch. To my knowledge, California makes no such distinction.
rayiner 13y ago
The purpose of the beach being public isn't really sunbathers. It's a very old principle based on the idea that the waters and the land under them belong to the public, and that they should be accessible to people doing the fundamental things that require access to the water: fishing, washing clothes, etc.

jonnathanson 13y ago

Things get a little wonky on a few of the more elite private beaches in Malibu: Broad Beach and Carbon Beach, among others. On these beaches, erosion has basically eliminated 50% of the beachfront, such that the entire public strip is underwater at mid to high tide. It's exposed only at low tide. Hence, the beaches are de facto private for much of the day. This isn't intentional; it's just the result of environmental changes over the last few decades.

jlgreco 13y ago
If the public land is the land between hightide and the water, shouldn't the public land be underwater during hightide by definition?
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  "If the public land is the land between hightide and the water, shouldn't the public land be underwater during hightide by definition?" Typically, there is some sand on the beach above the high tide line ("public dry sand easement" in zoning parlance). You're allowed to walk on this sand. This isn't the case on Broad Beach or Carbon Beach. At either of these beaches, there is no sand at all above the high tide line. Just a large seawall of rocks.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Seems kind of like a problem for everybody, not just the people not living there. Granted, the people living there can retreat to their homes while other people have to walk/drive home I guess, but it seems like basically a shitty deal for everyone. The only "defacto-private" thing in this situation is a shitty rock wall.
    - bmunro 13y ago
      The homes of the people living (or the rock wall) there are probably the cause of the lack of beach. Beaches are dynamic things, they get eroded during storms and are built up at other times. They can recede inland hundreds of metres over the years. Conversely, large amounts of sand can be deposited, extending the land well out into what used to be water. Humans putting houses, sea walls, groynes, bridges and other structures along the coast conflicts with the natural movements of the coast. In this case, if the houses were located further back from the beach, there would still be a beach there.

mjn 13y ago

> from the water to the high tide line That's what I've seen reported elsewhere. But this PDF from the state government claims that public access extends to the start of dune vegetation (where it exists) or 25 feet inland of the mean high-tide line otherwise, excluding in some cases a 10-foot buffer around authorized development. That would suggest a substantial portion of the beach is public, even above the high-tide line: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf edit: Some more digging turns up that the land up to the mean high tide line is publicly owned, but the right of public access may extend further landwards. In some cases the landowner is required to grant a 25-foot public-access easement above the MHTL, as a condition of getting a development permit. That appears to be what's happened in Malibu, or at least the PDF above is claiming so. In those cases the area above the MHTL is still technically private land, but the public is allowed to access it.

Alex3917 13y ago

"all beaches in California are public from the water to the high tide line." There is also a federal law that makes all navigable rivers open to the public up to the high water line. However, as far as I know there isn't any database that contains a list of all the rivers that are considered to be navigable, meaning that actually using this protection might require an expensive affirmative defense.

abduhl 13y ago
The Army Corp gives guidance on what defines a navigable waterway: http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr329.pdf http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/reg... It should be noted that rivers and streams shift over time and so there is no comprehensive list of navigable waterways.
nkurz 13y ago
Interesting. I hadn't realized there was an underlying federal law, since different states I've lived in have very different state laws as well. Lots of good information here: http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-who-owns.htm http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-who-owns.ht...
trothoun 13y ago
Even state supreme courts seem to sometimes have trouble determining what "navigable" means. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-218.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-218.pdf
czbond 13y ago
As a whitewater kayaker in Texas, I can concur with this saving us. But the police don't often know the federal law and will still harass or arrest you.
- khafra 13y ago
  Also, federal law won't necessarily save you in court, unless you have the money and time to escalate. I took a traffic fine to court once, showed the judge copies of the federal regulation and photos of the area proving that the signage was invalidly placed, and he upheld the fine anyway--he literally said "I don't care."