Recreational Customary Use of Beaches:
HB 6001 is a very short bill that repeals section 163.035, Florida Statutes, which governs the establishment of recreational customary use of beaches. In practical terms, the bill would remove the statutory procedure or framework created for recognizing public recreational customary use claims on beaches.
Because the bill contains no replacement language, its effect is purely repealing existing law rather than creating a new program or standard. The bill was withdrawn prior to introduction, and the companion measure passed as CS/SB 1622 (Chapter 2025-178), so HB 6001 itself did not advance through the legislative process.
The bill would have eliminated s. 163.035, F.S., from the Florida Statutes, affecting the legal process for establishing recreational customary use of beaches. That would have implications for property owners, local governments, and members of the public asserting access rights, because the statute appears to provide a mechanism for recognizing customary public use on beach property. Since the bill was withdrawn before introduction, it did not directly change state law, but the companion legislation that passed likely addressed the same subject matter.
There is limited direct evidence of debate or vote sentiment because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes for HB 6001, and the bill was withdrawn prior to introduction. The existence of a companion bill that ultimately passed suggests the policy area remained active and supported in some form, but HB 6001 itself did not generate a documented legislative record of support or opposition.
The central point of contention in this subject area is likely the balance between public beach access and private property rights. Repealing the customary use statute would matter most to coastal property owners, local governments, and advocates for public access, who may disagree over whether the state should provide a formal pathway for establishing recreational customary use. Because HB 6001 was withdrawn and there were no transcripts, specific arguments from supporters or opponents are not available in the record provided.