“A lawyer for waterfront landowners encountered both skepticism and support at the US Supreme Court on Wednesday while urging the justices to wade into a long-running dispute over the effect of erosion-control efforts on seaside property rights in Florida. At issue in the hour-long oral argument was whether a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court had so significantly changed the substance of Florida property law as to amount to a public taking of private property without payment of just compensation. Tallahassee lawyer D. Kent Safriet told the justices that Florida’s highest court ‘redefined’ the essence of littoral property rights in the state … [and] determined that the essential right for waterfront property owners was access to the water, not physical contact with it. The position prompted a response from Justice Antonin Scalia. ‘It would be very strange to have a principle that all a littoral owner gets is a right to access the water, not a right to be on the water,’ he said.” (12/02/09)