Environmental law

Subscribe to Environmental law via RSS

Here’s some of the stories and commentary we’ve been reading about the Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, No. 11-1147 (June 25, 2013:

…
Continue Reading Koontz Round-Up

Do regulations that exist at the time that a property owner purchases his land negate any expectation that he will be able to use the land productively? Not according to this amici brief, filed today in Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (cert. petititon filed June 5, 2013).

The cert petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in which the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

The amici brief, filed by the National Federationof Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, the Cato Institute, and the Chapman Center for Constitutional Jurisprdence poses the Question Presented this way:

In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this Court…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In “Investment-Backed Expectations” Case: Are Most Takings Claims Snuffed Out At Transfer Of Title?

Some things are constant: the speed of light, the sun rises in the east. And Professor John Echeverria, the well-known environmental lawprof, has never met a taking he’s liked.

Even if that means disagreeing in one takings case with Justice Ginsburg writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, the unanimous Court in another takings case, or, as in his op-ed in today’s New York Times, “A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development,” it means arguing that the Court’s ruling in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District, No. 11-1147 (June 25, 2013) says what it doesn’t necessarily say.

The op-ed merits careful reading.

First, he argues that “[t]he district made clear that it was willing to grant the permit if Mr. Koontz agreed to reduce the size of the development or spend money on any of a variety of wetlands-restoration projects designed to offset the project’s…

Continue Reading Surprise! Environmental Lawprof Dislikes Koontz

Well, the hammer finally dropped and the Supreme Court today issued its opinion in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management District, No. 11-1447 (June 25, 2013). The opinion comes out on the next-to-last day of the Term presumably because — unlike the earlier two takings cases — Koontz was not unanimous, but was what one colleague referred to as a “classic” split in the Justices: the Chief, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas joining the opinion authored by Justice Alito, with the Court’s liberal wing siding at least partially with the government.

So before tomorrow’s rulings on the same-sex marriage issue suck all the air out of the room, here are our thoughts on Koontz:

  • All nine Justices agree that a property owner need not accept a permit which is subject to conditions she believes are unconstitutional in order to challenge it. This is a remarkable shift in tone

…
Continue Reading Exactions: Supreme Court Right On The Money

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt District, No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), holding that the nexus and proportionality standards apply to government demands for money as well as land, and that a property owner need not accept the permit in order to challenge it.

Opinion here. This is the third and final takings case the Court considered this term, which asked whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests for all exactions.

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the case, in support of Mr. Koontz.

Here’s our thoughts on the oral arguments. More, once we have a chance to digest the opinions in detail.

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, No. 1101447 (June 25, 2013)

…
Continue Reading SCOTUS On Exactions: Nollan/Dolan Apply

Mostly mising from all the anticipation over the Supreme Court’s “blockbuster” cases on same sex marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action, is the Court’s third takings decision of the term, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. Professor Ilya Somin primes the pump in this post, “Still Waiting for the Koontz Decision,” which includes links to other prognostications, including an interesting (possible) insight from lawprof Josh Blackman.

We’re also in the final planning stages for the July 12, 2013 ABA webinar on Koontz and Horne, “Supreme Court Takings: A First Look at Koontz and Horne.” Make plans and join us for a discussion of these cases by our panel of expert scholars (Professors David Callies [Hawaii] and Michael McConnell [Stanford, also arguing counsel in Horne]), and practitioners (my State and Local Government Law Section colleagues Andy Gowder and Michael Kamprath). Continue Reading Waiting For Koontz

Mark your calendars: On August 14-16, 2013, ALI-CLE is putting on the annual Land Use Institute. It’s in San Francisco, which is very convenient for those who may be attending the ABA Annual Meeting the week earlier. A good excuse to stay longer.

The Land Use Institute, now in its 29th year, is designed for attorneys, professional planners, public officials, developers, and academics who are involved in land use planning, zoning, permitting, property development, environmental protection, and related litigation. This cutting-edge program, comprising 16 hours of instruction, including one hour of ethics, and taught by preeminent practitioners, academics, and government officials, has well-earned its role as the most comprehensive land use continuing education program available.

Not only does the program provide critical reviews and analyses of the most important new cases, nationwide trends, state-specific concerns, and both routine and complex procedural issues, but it also offers outstanding networking opportunities…

Continue Reading Upcoming ALI-CLE Conference: Land Use Institute – Planning, Regulation, Litigation, Eminent Domain, and Compensation

What’s the difference, if any, between a “cemetery” and a burial, and are burials in cemeteries exempt from archaeological review? That’s one of the issues the Hawaii Supreme Court agreed to review in this Order, by which it accepted the DLNR’s application for a writ of certiorari.

In Hall v. Dep’t of Land and Natural Resources, No. 12-0000061 (Dec. 14, 2012), the Intermediate Court of Appeals held that a development proposed by the historic Kawaiahao Church in Honolulu is not exempt from historic preservation review, and the state should have required the preparation of an archaelogical inventory survey prior to the State Historical Preservation Department’s check off on the project, even though the development is located in the Church’s cemetery.

The DLNR’s application posed the following Questions Presented:

Defendant-Appellee Kawaiaha‘o Church (the “Church”) is attempting to construct a multi-purpose building (“MPC Project”) on its grounds for use…

Continue Reading HAWSCT To Review Kawaiahao Church Cemetery Case

Mark your calendars for July 12, 2013 for our CLE teleconference on “Supreme Court Takings: A First Look at Koontz and Horne,” sponsored by the ABA’s State and Local Government Law Section. We’ll start at 1:00 pm ET (Noon CT, 11:00 am MT, 10:00 am PT, 7:00 am HT). Here’s the program description:

In the 2012term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on two regulatory takings cases,Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management District, and Horne v. U.S.Department of Agriculture. Join our panel of legal scholars and expertpractitioners for the first analysis of these cases, and how the Court’srulings on land use exactions (Koontz), and jurisdiction (Horne) will impactyour practice.

We’ve assembled a great faculty with a mix of expert scholars and practitioners: Professor Michael McConnell (arguing counsel in Horne), Professor David Callies, W. Andrew Gowder, and…

Continue Reading Upcoming ABA CLE: “Supreme Court Takings – A First Look At Koontz And Horne”

Here’s the cert petition filed last week which asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in Mehaffy v. United States (Dec. 10, 2012). In that case, the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

The Questions Presented give some additional background:

In 1970, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) entered into an agreement that gave the Petitioner‘s predecessor in interest, Nomikano, Inc., the right to fill certain wetlands on its property. In exchange, the government obtained a flowage easement over a portion of the property. Petitioner was Secretary-Treasurer of Nomikano and involved in those negotiations. In 2000, Petitioner obtained the property. Subsequently, in 2006, he sought a permit from the Corps…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Do Pre-Purchase Regulations Negate A Property Owner’s Expectations?