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
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Actually, it really depends on how the house there is built. Many are on stilts, and with the tide, you are up against their property. Beach is also uneven, so in places there is dry sand left, but it's surrounded on three sides by water and forth side is the house.
There are also legitimate concerns for many homeowners. I've frequently seen homeless camping underneath those houses on stilts. This is definitely a safety issue.
Another issue is trash. If you walk through Santa Monica beaches Sunday evening, it is appalling. Piles of trash in the parking lots and by waterline. After seeing it, I really can't blame Malibu residents from trying to protect their beaches.
That said, because I'm not privileged enough to have private beach access, this app is kinda cool.
> I've frequently seen homeless camping underneath those houses on stilts.
I'm with you on the trash -- come down to Hermosa on the morning of July 5! -- but this is a lame excuse to prevent beach access. I'm all for homeless people camping out beneath David Geffen's infinity pool. Maybe complaints coming from somebody of his stature would finally get the city to deal with this problem in a humane and effective way, instead of just sweeping it under the rug as they have for decades.
...deal with this problem in a humane and effective way...
Which problem exactly? Where the homeless sleep or the fact that they exist? Most municipal solutions I've seen to the former problem are repulsively violent, while it isn't clear that the latter "problem" has solutions.
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.
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.
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
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.