Check out the case of Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. v. Florida Dept. of the Environment, 998 So. 2d 1102 ( Fl. 2008).
In this case erosion threatens about 60% of Florida's beaches, and under a 1961 law, the state dredged sand from one area and moved it to a threatened area, extending the width of an eroding beach 80-100 feet. This new stretch of beach would then be publicly accessible. Six property owners, calling themselves Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc., claimed their deeds entitled them to the waterfront, and that members of the public should not be permitted to use the additional space. Look at the difference in how the court ruled in this case? Was this a regulatory taking or a taking which required compensation?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 3:39 am ad1c9bdddf
There is a difference in how the court ruled in this case is that the littoral rights are not constitutionally protected. The reasoning is that the owners could not show that the land owners had property rights to future exposed land. The land owners could not show that they had rights ...
The response provides you a structured explanation of why littoral rights are not constitutionally protected . It also gives you the relevant references.