## Facts

- The State of Florida expanded the boundaries of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park (Pennekamp Park) to include submerged lands located between the park and Key Largo.
- The submerged lands within the expanded park boundary were sovereign submerged lands held by Florida for the public’s benefit.
- Gail H. Krieter owned upland property on Key Largo adjacent to the newly expanded park boundary; a public road lay on the landward side of her property.
- Krieter applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to build a private residential dock extending from her upland property across the park’s submerged lands.
- DER denied the permit request on the ground that no new docks could be built extending into Pennekamp Park.
- Krieter sued state officials (including Governor Lawton Chiles and the Trustees responsible for state lands), alleging that she had a riparian right to “wharf out” to adjacent waters and that the permit denial amounted to an unconstitutional taking without compensation.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss and allowed Krieter time to amend; she did not amend within the time allowed, and the trial court entered a final dismissal with prejudice.
- Krieter appealed the dismissal with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether a riparian upland owner has a right, as a matter of law, to construct a private dock over adjacent sovereign submerged lands that lie within a state park.
2. Whether the State’s denial of a permit for a private dock over public-trust submerged lands states a claim for an unconstitutional taking without compensation.
3. Whether Krieter’s complaint stated a cause of action sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final dismissal with prejudice.
- The court held that a riparian owner’s access rights are limited and must yield when they conflict with the public’s rights in sovereign submerged lands held for public use.
- The court concluded that the State, acting through its agencies and trustees responsible for public-trust lands, could bar new private docks extending into Pennekamp Park to protect public use of the park’s submerged lands.
- The court determined that Krieter’s allegations did not state a viable claim that the permit denial was unlawful or amounted to a compensable taking, and dismissal was proper (especially after she failed to amend).

## Legal Principles

- Riparian rights attach to upland ownership, including rights of access to the water, but they are not absolute and are subject to the superior rights of the public in state-owned submerged lands.
- Sovereign submerged lands remain owned by the State in trust for the public; riparian rights do not transfer ownership or a possessory estate in those lands.
- The State may regulate and restrict private structures over sovereign submerged lands, including denying permits for private docks, when the restriction serves public use of those lands (such as within a state park).
- A complaint challenging a permit denial must allege facts showing an unlawful exercise of state authority; reliance on riparian status alone does not establish entitlement to build on public-trust lands.
- When a trial court dismisses a complaint with leave to amend and the plaintiff does not amend within the time allowed, entry of a final dismissal with prejudice may be affirmed on appeal if the original pleading fails to state a cause of action.

## Conclusion

Krieter v. Chiles held that an upland owner’s riparian access rights do not guarantee permission to build a private dock over sovereign submerged lands inside a state park, and that Florida’s refusal to permit new docks into Pennekamp Park did not, on the pleadings, state a compensable taking or other claim that would defeat dismissal.


Krieter v. Chiles, 595 So. 2d 111 (1992)