Supreme Court Ruling on Wetlands, Continued

In my last blog about the US Supreme Court ruling on Florida's St. Johns River Water Management District loss to a 15 acre owner, I expected it would take years to determine the actual effects.  Below is some of the on going commentary showing a wide range of views.

When you need help with land questions, please call Henry Rogers

US Supreme Court rules on Private Land Owner vs St. Johns River Water Management District

Denial of Permit was a Take

On June 25, 2013 the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of a Florida property owner who sued the St. Johns River Water Management District over a permit denied over 18 years ago. Mr. Coy Koontz applied for a permit to develop 3.7 acres of a 15-acre property near Orlando for proposed commercial development. It was determined that most of the property was jurisdictional wetlands and designated as a Protected Riparian Habitat Zone. The applicant reluctantly offered to preserve the remaining wetlands on the property as mitigation; however, the District deemed this offer insufficient. In addition to the preserved wetlands, the District suggested that the applicant pay to improve around 50 acres of wetlands on District-owned lands elsewhere or significantly reduce his development foot-print to less than one acre. Mr. Koontz refused and the District denied the permit. Mr. Koontz sued the District and a trial court awarded him $325,500 for being unable to use his property. Florida's Supreme Court reversed the decision saying that since no permit was issued and Koonz spent no money, then nothing was actually "taken". The US Supreme Court heard the case and reversed the decision again in favor of the Mr. Koonz that he was entitled to compensation. The case was sent back to Florida courts for further proceedings.  So far, this decision has had extreme interpretations. Many claim that this gives landowners the ability to sue local government agencies for denying building permits and could strike fear into local land use regulators in State, county, and municipal government. This could either cause them to avoid discussing mitigation for environmental and infrastructure impacts and issue permits without scrutiny or possibly even cause them to shut down and simply deny all permits. Some see anarchy with no social protections while others predict paralysis of the permitting process. "Regulators can't hold permit applicants hostage with unjustified demands for land or other concessions, including, as in this case, unjustified demands for money. The court has recognized that money is a form of property, and the Constitution prohibits grabbing money from property owners the same way it prohibits grabbing land without compensation", Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard II. "The boundaries of the majority's new rule are uncertain, but it threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny," Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Stay tuned to see how this plays out with upcoming legal interpretations as the case is remanded back to Florida. But until then, it should be business as usual for state and local agencies in regard to permit application review and processing.