Where there is an accumulation at an inlet, whether due to an existing 

 jetty system or as a result of natural action, and where it is desirable to 

 transfer some of that material to the downdrift beach by whatever method is 

 most feasible, it does not follow that any agency — Federal, State, or local — 

 has the right to make the transfer. The accreted land is not necessarily in 

 the public domain. For example, in at least one case in the State of New 

 Jersey [Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Masciarella 92 NJ Super. 53,222 A 2nd. 

 138 (1966)], it was decided that an accumulation, which was clearly due to an 

 existing inlet jetty system, was owned by the holder of the title to the 

 adjacent upland. The court stated that "gradual and imperceptible accretions 

 belong to the upland owners though they may have been induced by artificial 

 structures." 



The phrase "gradual and imperceptible accretions" is open to legal deter- 

 mination since it would be unusual for a person to stand on a beach and 

 clearly see accretion taking place. Accretion might be detected by surveys at 

 intervals of a month or more. Thus, any agency contemplating bypassing must 

 consult the local legal precedent. 



At an inlet employing a weir jetty and a deposition basin, updrift accre- 

 tion may be uncertain. If the weir interferes with littoral transport and 

 causes the beach initially to fill to the elevation of the top of the weir, it 

 is conceivable that there will be a gradual advance of beach elevations well 

 above the elevation of the weir. This will cause the movement of material 

 over the weir to decrease, and there will be accretion for some distance 

 updrift of the jetty with consequent legal questions concerning ownership. 

 Since an impairment of the movement over the weir reduces the effectiveness of 

 bypassing, steps should be taken to restore the efficiency of the weir. Such 

 action will inevitably result in a loss of updrift accretions, and again legal 

 considerations may arise. 



If the deposition basin in the lee of an offshore breakwater is not 

 cleared of accumulations regularly, it is possible that continuing accretion 

 may ultimately produce land from the former shoreline out to the break- 

 water. The resumption of bypassing operations may then require ownership 

 determination. 



Legal considerations may even arise on the downdrift beach receiving 

 bypassed sand, despite the obvious advantages to most property owners. 

 Another case reported involved a pier used for fishing, located on a beach 

 that had been artificially nourished. Before the beach nourishment was 

 commenced, an adequate water depth for fishing existed; after the nourishment 

 was commenced, depths along the pier decreased to such an extent that fishing 

 was greatly impaired. The owner then brought suit seeking payment for the 

 loss of value to his pier. 



It is not the purpose here to set forth a comprehensive discussion of the 

 legal problems encountered in connection with sand bypassing. The above 

 discussion is merely to alert the planner that such problems do arise, and it 

 is therefore prudent to seek legal counsel at the earliest stages of project 

 formulation. 



5-34 



