Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P purchased an undeveloped 14.9-acre tract of land. The combined effect of a ditch, a 100-foot wide area kept clear for the power lines, the highways, and other construction on nearby parcels isolates the northern section of P’s property from any other undeveloped land. The northern section drains well. The natural topography of the southern section is more diverse, with a small creek, forested uplands, and wetlands that sometimes have water as much as a foot deep. Raccoons, rabbits, several species of bird, and a turtle frequent the area. The land may be a suitable habitat for opossums. The same year that P purchased his property, Florida enacted the Water Resources Act dividing the State into five water management districts and authorized each district to regulate “construction that connects to, draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state.” Permits for construction were available through each district subject to “such reasonable conditions” as are “necessary to assure” that construction will “not be harmful to the water resources of the district.” In 1984, P passed a Wetlands Protection Act, which made it illegal for anyone to “dredge or fill in, on, or over surface waters” without a Wetlands Resource Management (WRM) permit. P decided to develop the 3.7-acre northern section of his property. P applied for a permit. To mitigate the environmental effects of his proposal, P offered to foreclose any possible future development of the approximately 11-acre southern section of his land by deeding to D a conservation easement on that portion of his property. D informed P that it would approve construction only if he agreed to one of two concessions. D proposed that the development be reduced to 1 acre and deed to D a conservation easement on the remaining 13.9 acres. To reduce the development area, D suggested that P could eliminate the dry-bed pond from his proposal and instead install a more costly subsurface stormwater management system beneath the building site. D also suggested that petitioner install retaining walls rather than gradually sloping the land from the building site down to the elevation of the rest of his property to the south. As a second alternative, D could proceed with the development as proposed, but D would have to agree to hire contractors to make improvements to D-owned land several miles away. P could pay to replace culverts on one parcel or fill in ditches on another. Either of those projects would have enhanced approximately 50 acres of D-owned wetlands. P sued D. The trial court concluded that any further mitigation in the form of payment for offsite improvements lacked both a nexus and rough proportionality to the environmental impact of the proposed construction. The Florida District Court affirmed, but the State Supreme Court reversed. It drew a distinction between a demand for an interest in real property (what happened in Nollan and Dolan) and a demand for money. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.