ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

Attorneys on opposite sides of an argument over who owns growing Hawaii beaches are studying the potential meaning of last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Florida case. And like with a Rorschach test, they’re seeing the same thing differently.

The court ruled against Stop The Beach Renourishment, a group of landowners who argued that they should be compensated by the state of Florida because a public beach restoration project put dozens of feet of sand between their property and the sea. They said that amounted to a “taking” of their rights.

Although [pdf] in favor of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was unanimous, 8-0 with one recusal, that harmony was deceptive. The court was split into three factions with three otherwise similar opinions that differed considerably on the new concept of a “judicial taking.” If applied, that theory would make courts, just like legislative and executive branches of government, liable for taking previously private property.

In the days since the decision was handed down June 17, many legal analysts have focused on the potential widespread impact of employing that principle. Law professor Ben Barros made , the University of Chicago asked a and the New York Times authored an .

But the case touches on a number of other principles that are important here in Hawaii, as can be seen by the response of the two local attorneys.

Paul Alston, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Hawaii fight over new sand piled up on beaches — a case the state supreme court has declined to hear, leaving an appeals court ruling as the law of the land — said he feels “vindicated” by the ruling.

“The (U.S.) Supreme Court’s decision clearly demonstrates the error we say both the ICA (Intermediate Court of Appeals) and the (Hawaii) Supreme Court made in rejecting our claim to maintain future direct waterfront ownership,” he said.

Alston said he agreed with the decision because it relied on a Florida law that allows the “submerged landowner” — the state — to fill in its own land and make it dry. He said Florida’s, and the Supreme Court’s, acknowledgment of the difference between accretion — the gradual growth of beaches — and avulsion — sudden, observable changes to the boundary — is consistent with Hawaii law.

“There’s nothing in (the decision) that I don’t like because the law has always been that the sovereign has the right to improve its own land,” he said. But Hawaii’s amounts to “just the state coming in and saying yes you had these rights but now you don’t have these rights anymore.”

Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett disagrees with Alston’s analysis.

Asked what the U.S. Supreme Court ruling means for Hawaii, Bennett said “its immediate impact is zero.”

“You can’t have a taking unless you can demonstrate in state law that you had a clear property right, and to me, that is the key language in the decision,” he said.

Bennett pointed to a section of the opinion that states, “The Takings Clause only protects property rights as they are established under state law, not as they might have been established or ought to have been established.”

And because the Hawaii court ruled that claims to future accretions would be purely speculative, they are not considered vested private property by state law, he said.

“The U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirms that whether or not there’s a taking is up to state law,” he said. “This certainly reaffirmed that there is no federal claim for compensation for this Act 73 decision.”

Alston and Bennett have different interpretations of law, but we might soon find out which one is right. Alston said the Florida case encouraged him to keep fighting. He will either file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Hawaii case, or he’ll make a motion for reconsideration to the Hawaii Supreme Court to ask it to take another look in light of the federal court’s ruling.

DISCUSSION: Join the discussion about Hawaii beaches and related issues, such as ownership, access, building setbacks and maintenance.