WASHINGTON -- Florida's beaches -- the blindingly white shores of the Panhandle, the bikini dotted sands of South Beach -- are the state's signature attraction.

Now they're the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case. On Wednesday, the high court will take up a case that could affect coastal property rights, beach access and efforts to shore up storm-eroded shorelines across the United States.

At issue is whether the Florida Supreme Court -- by siding with state efforts to restore miles of beach in the Panhandle -- took away homeowners' property rights.

For decades, Florida has battled erosion of its Gulf and Atlantic beaches by depositing fresh sand along the coast. But a group of Walton County homeowners took exception, arguing that a proposed renourishment project would leave a strip of sand between their property and the Gulf of Mexico that amounted to a public beach. And that swath of sand, they warned in court records, could attract vendors peddling kayaks, ``inflatable boat rides, personal watercraft, and parasails.''

The Florida Supreme Court -- in a 5-2 decision authored by former Justice Kenneth Bell, himself a Panhandle native -- upheld the state project, finding Florida has a ``constitutional duty to protect Florida's beaches.''

Now the six homeowners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to find that the state court negated their rights in the now-completed project. They're arguing that they were not compensated for losing property that once extended to the water -- and now ends at a public beach. And they argue that homes that once fetched top dollar as beachfront property, they say, are now simply beach view.

``This beach renourishment project was not needed or wanted by the homeowners,'' said Tallahassee attorney Kent Safriet, who represents the Walton County homeowners and argues that the county was looking to carve out a public beach in an area where development is crowding out open space.

``The intent is a land grab by local government to create a public beach where a private beach previously existed.''

TAXPAYERS' TAB

Florida counters that beach restoration provides private owners with benefits like protection from erosion and storm surges -- and taxpayers pick up the tab.

``Over the years, about 198 miles of Florida's 825 miles of beaches have been restored . . . providing enormous protection and benefits to the public as well as to thousands of beachfront property owners,'' Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum argues for the state. ``None of these property owners have claimed entitlement to money or title to the state-owned portions of restored beaches -- until now.''

The case has attracted the interest of builders' groups and property rights activists nationwide, who argue that the property owners had a beach stretching 200 feet to the water; now there's 75 feet of public beach between the property line and the water.

``The homeowners paid considerable sums for oceanfront properties with private beaches, yet they have received nothing for the loss of what they paid for,'' attorney Peter Ferrara wrote for the American Civil Rights Union, a conservative legal organization.

Beach restoration advocates -- including the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, whose directors include Miami-Dade and Broward environmental officials -- warn that a loss in court could chill Florida's attempts to shore up its eroding beaches.