Wakulla Springs

[a64pilot]

Good luck with this, if my memory serves the previous owner among other things that would never be allowed today, put a fence across the run and it stuck. I think again if I remember correctly there may even have been a court case about it, and he won. This was a long time ago when I lived on Alligator Point as a kid, and I may be way off.

[curtschu]

This is not completely accurate as it describes the definition of 'national' navigable waterways. Each state has a seperate definition of what it considers navigable and therefore open for public use.

As applied in Florida, the Public Trust Doctrine protects water bodies that were navigable in fact at the time of statehood in 1845. In 1909, the Florida Supreme Court defined the term "navigable in fact" as meaning "navigable for useful purposes common to the public in the locality where the waterbody is located."

In some states "navigable for useful purposes common to the public in the locality where the waterbody is located" covers fishing.

You are probably completely correct. I'm sure there are plenty of photos of goods being unloaded at the head spring that would plainly show the waterway has a history do commerce navigation. That is the easy part. The hard part is getting a lawyer to file suit against the current owners. There just is not anyone willing to put up the money. So now you have won and the fence is down, what have you gained? Boater access.

[speleodiver]

Good luck with this, if my memory serves the previous owner among other things that would never be allowed today, put a fence across the run and it stuck. I think again if I remember correctly there may even have been a court case about it, and he won. This was a long time ago when I lived on Alligator Point as a kid, and I may be way off.

You are correct. There was a court case filed by the STATE of Florida back when Edward Ball built the fence. The case was one of those that came down to who had more money. A local millionaire or the State of Florida? Basically the case fell flat when the state ran out of money to pursue it. When the State bought the land, all of the sudden the tides turned and the fence deemed legal. Hmmm?

A little on navigability. The Corp of Engineers does set the standard for navigability on a federal level. While the state can write their own definition of navigable waterways, it will not override federal law. All waterways connecting to federal waters through any means are considered federal and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. We all know where Wakulla ends up. However, there has been one challenge to the federal law in Lykes Bros. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers 926 F.2D 1036. This is the only case law that has ever overturned a Corp decision of navigability under the US Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. It should be noted that the determination of the Wakulla River is available from the Corp of Engineers. I personally have not sought it out yet. Bottom line is: if the waterway is deemed navigable, then the STATE would need a very good reason to have it left in place. That reason is the wildlife sanctuary. The determination will be left to a federal judge who will balance out the need for public access on STATE land or the preservation of a wildlife sanctuary. Part of the determination will be the law that states the land on the shore was well as the land under the water is owed and not considered under the Rivers and Harbors Act. The owner is the STATE. All of this of course after the Plaintiff’s spend $$$$$$$$$ on fighting what probably can’t be won if you look at the above referenced case law.