US Supreme Court may hear case regarding beach access

[Nwbrewer]

p.s. I am interested in this only as an intellectual issue. People walk the beach, and even fish from the beach, in front of my house and I would never try to stop them, even if the courts say I can. I just think it is neat that whales scoop up sand that my deed says is mine.

I'm the same way as far as fishing and walking in front of my place. We have had issues with people and aggressive dogs, and with one particular guy who thought it was OK to smoke Marijuana while fishing while my kids were playing down there. We don't have any tribal issues where I'm at. I intentionally avoided areas that had a high likelyhood of tribal legal entanglements when looking for land.

[oldsalt]

Roxndox and Nwbrewer are both right, it is complicated and unsettled. The property description on my deed says my property runs out into the bay, gray whales feed in the sand that this deed says is mine. However, the local tribes claim their treaty gives them the tideland up to the mean tide, which they define is the mean higher high tide, or about a +10.2 tide. When I had some work done on my place, the county said it would yield to the tribe and confine my work to above that level. That level is varies with the flow of sand on the beach as it builds up after calm periods and washes away during storms. The height of the beach can vary by three feet, pushing the water's edge, and my property line, back and forth by a hundred feet or more. We'll see what the Supremes say.
-Curt
p.s. I am interested in this only as an intellectual issue. People walk the beach, and even fish from the beach, in front of my house and I would never try to stop them, even if the courts say I can. I just think it is neat that whales scoop up sand that my deed says is mine.

[RoxnDox]

Washington is a weird state when it comes to tidelands ownership. It varies depending on the year of purchase. Some times the state sold the lands, some times they kept ownership but basically sold access, some times the extent was to different tide levels.

I looked into the subject a couple years ago, so I don’t recall the specific links and such, but it’s complicated for sure.

https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspa ... sAllowed=y

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publication ... 0part9.pdf

https://blog.seattlepi.com/realestate/2 ... vs-public/

Etc etc

[Nwbrewer]

This is interesting. I don't know how it works on fresh water frontages in WA, but for most of puget sound, your property extends beyond the high tide line, in some cases far beyond. In my case I own property in a small cove, and my property line is actually down the middle of the cove.

I know some properties extend a fair ways out, allowing property owners to sublet the land to Taylor, Seattle Shellfish, Hamma Hamma or whoever to grow oysters and Goeducks.

[johndo88]

People who own waterfront property generally only own that property down to the high water mark. The property below the high water mark is generally in the public trust. The US Supreme Court might hear a case that could change that. Warning, this video is 20 minutes long.

https://youtu.be/NqtrOrAHNDs

Cheers