O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 52-1-2 (2019)

Legislative findings and declaration of policy; public trust doctrine for tidewaters

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The General Assembly finds and declares that the State of Georgia became the owner of the beds of all tidewaters within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia as successor to the Crown of England and by the common law. The State of Georgia continues to hold title to the beds of all tidewaters within the state, except where title in a private party can be traced to a valid Crown or state grant which explicitly conveyed the beds of such tidewaters. The General Assembly further finds that the

State of Georgia, as sovereign, is trustee of the rights of the people of the state to use and enjoy all tidewaters which are capable of use for fishing, passage, navigation, commerce, and transportation, pursuant to the common law public trust doctrine. Therefore, the General Assembly declares that the protection of tidewaters for use by the state and its citizens has more than local significance, is of equal importance to all citizens of the state, is of state-wide concern, and, consequently, is properly a matter for regulation under the police powers of the state. The General Assembly further finds and declares that structures located upon tidewaters which are used as places of habitation, dwelling, sojournment, or residence interfere with the state’s proprietary interest or the public trust, or both, and must be removed to ensure the rights of the state and the people of the State of Georgia to the use and enjoyment of such tidewaters. It is declared to be a policy of this state and the intent of this article to protect the tidewaters of the state by authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to remove or require removal of certain structures from such tidewaters in accordance with the procedures and within the timetable set forth in this article.

History

Code 1981, § 52-1-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2317, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For survey article on

real property law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 371 (2007). For survey article on law of torts, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2007).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS O.C.G.A. § 52-1-2, a trial court correctly ruled that the marshland at issue was owned by the State of Georgia. Black v. Floyd, 280 Ga. 525, 630 S.E.2d 382 (2006).

Claim of private ownership not supported by illegible documents. - Illegible and indecipherable documents did not support a claim of ownership to certain tidal marshland, and, pursuant to

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “2d 382 (2006); OCGA § 52-1-2. [3] The Committee was created under OCGA § 12-5-283(a) of the CMPA to consider permit applications (along with leases of state-owned marshlands and water bottoms) and is composed of the Commissioner of Natural Resources (who pursuant to OCGA §…”

Black v. Floyd, 630 S.E.2d 382 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “) OCGA§ 52-1-2. The definition of “tidewaters” includes the sea and all rivers and arms of the sea that are affected by the tide, where the tide rises and falls, which are capable of use for fishing, passage, navigation, commerce, or transportation, and which are located within…”

Rouse v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 524 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 4× “Moreover, reviewing the definition of “structure” provided by § 52-1-3 (3), as well as statutory intent provided by OCGA § 52-1-2, 19 which also provides guidance as to the structures that fall within the Act, it is clear that the Act applies to structures, meaning “something…”

Kelso v. Baxter, 665 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “6 See also OCGA § 52-1-2 (1992) (State holds title to all tidewater beds in Georgia except where private party can trace title to valid Crown or state grant).”

The State of Georgia v. Nofree, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 14× “6 grant[,] and OCGA § 52-1-2, which requires an explicit conveyance of the beds of tidewaters and further states that grants are to be strictly construed with no presumption of an intent to part from any portion of public domain, unless clear and especial words are used to…”

The State of Georgia v. Nofree, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “”10 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law.11 If “two statutes are in conflict, the later-enacted statute prevails over the one enacted earlier, and the more 8 OCGA § 44-5-1.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.