Water rights | Public trust

Subscribe to Water rights | Public trust via RSS

13.LULHIIt’s back! Time once again for the bi-annual Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, to be held January 17 and 18, 2013 (Thursday and Friday) at the Downtown YWCA (a very convenient venue).

Planning co-chairs Professor David Callies and Ben Kudo have once again assembled a stellar faculty and put together an agenda that covers most topics of interest.

We’ll be moderating a panel on “Development Through Exemptions – The Evolution of Reclassifications, Permitting, Land Use &Development in Hawaii: The Unintended Consequences ofan Increasingly Complex System of Regulations,” featuring panelists Linda L.W. Chow (Deputy Attorney General State of Hawaii), Oswald K. Stender (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), and Kali Watson (Hawaiian Community Development).

Two highlights of the conference:

First, Mike Berger will give the keynote presentation on our favorite topic, regulatory takings: “Taking a Critical Look at 30 Years of the Supreme Court’s Taking Jurisprudence.” Mike has taken the lead in…

Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: 10th Hawaii Land Use Law Conference (Jan. 17-18, 2013)

Check out “Property rights take center stage in disputes over wetlands, flooding,” by Greenwire‘s Lawrence Hurley, asking whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent “flurry of activity” in property cases augurs a renewed interest in these issues by the Court, or is, as lawprof John Echeverria is quoted as suggesting, “serendipity.”

So far this Term, the Court has agreed to review two major property rights cases, Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n (is government-caused flooding a taking) and Koontz (do the Nollan/Dolan limitations for land exactions apply to government demands for cash), and could grant cert in others. Lawprof Jonathan Adler suggesting this might not be a new trend, but simply “a return to the norm.”

One of the views noted in the article is ours:

In analyzing why property rights is making a comeback at the high court, some court-watchers point to an active and ideologically driven…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Again Focused On Property Cases?

You can take the Justice out of the Court, but you apparently can’t take the Court out of the Justice. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has added the “ninth vote” (his words, not ours) in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (June 17, 2010), the case is which the other eight Justices all agreed that the Florida Supreme Court had not changed the law, so there had been no “judicial taking.” Four Justices, however, opined that if a court declares that what was once an established right of private property no longer exists, it has taken that property in violation of the Takings Clause.

Justice Stevens sat that one out, recusing himself because news stories had noted his wife owned a beachfront condo in Ft. Lauderdale. But the lure of adding his reaction to Justice Scalia’s opinion has proven too much to…

Continue Reading Justice Stevens, Recused In The “Stop The Beach Renourishment” Case, Weighs In On The “Stop The Beach Renourishment” Case

The Oyez Project has posted the recording in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case argued earlier this week in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Check it out here. We posted our summary of the petitioner’s arguments here, and will be posting our thoughts on the government’s arguments shortly. But in the meantime, listen along. Continue Reading Oral Argument Recording In SCOTUS Flood Takings Case

The New York Times editorial page has weighed in on Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the takings case argued earlier this week in the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, no surprise, in When Flooding Is Not a Taking, the great beneficiary of eminent domain abuse comes out on the “no compensation” side when the government purposefully floods property because — get this — the floodwaters eventually recede: 

The takings clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment ensures that private property cannot be taken for public use without fair compensation. A classic example is the government’s exercise of eminent domain power to build a highway; if the road cuts through private land, the government owes the owners payment equal to fair market value. That principle applies when the government builds a dam, and water and silt overflow land, permanently destroying or…

Continue Reading Does The NY Times Know That Most Floodwaters Eventually Recede (Or Might?)

Here’s the transcript of Wednesday’s argument in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): we’re predicting the property owner win with a minimum six-Justice majority (perhaps more), with a narrowly drawn opinion vacating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that temporary flooding can never be a taking. Whether the Court adopts a new test to determine whether a taking occured when the government purposefully floods land, however, is up in the air.

The petitioner was represented by James Goodhart, who led off the argument by attacking the Federal Circuit’s conclusion, arguing for a rule that a taking occurs whenever a “direct physical invasion” results in a “substantial intrusion” on a property interest, and that the duration of the invasion is not relevant. That’s a restatement of the existing per se rule that any physical invasion that…

Continue Reading Of Picnics And Floods: Oral Arguments In SCOTUS Takings Case, Part I

Here’s the transcript of Wednesday’s argument in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): we’re predicting the property owner win with a minimum six-Justice majority (perhaps more), with a narrowly drawn opinion vacating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that temporary flooding can never be a taking. Whether the Court adopts a new test to determine whether a taking occured when the government purposefully floods land, however, is up in the air.

The petitioner was represented by James Goodheart, who led off the argument by attacking the Federal Circuit’s conclusion, arguing for a rule that a taking occurs whenever a “direct physical invasion” results in a “substantial intrusion” on a property interest, and that the duration of the invasion is not relevant. That’s a restatement of the existing per se rule that any physical invasion that…

Continue Reading SG Doubles Down: Transcript Of Arguments In SCOTUS Flood Takings Case, Part II

Later today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), to review the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that  flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and even thought it destroyed trees owned by Arkansas, it was not a compensable taking merely because the flooding eventually stopped, and “at most created tort liablity.” The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases and regularly results in awards of compensation. The Federal Circuit’s opinion is here.

We filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the property owner/petitioner, which argues that as long as the water releases by the Corps “directly and substantially” resulted in damage to petitioner’s trees it’s a taking for which just compensation is required and…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Arguments In Flood Takings Case

If you understand that headline, congratulations: you are officially a takings geek.

Here’s another piece worth reading, to prepare yourself for next week’s oral arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012): Is the federal government shifting the focus in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission? by my PLF colleague Brian T. Hodges.

Somewhat surprisingly, the central question in this case—whether a physical invasion of private property must continue permanently to take property within the meaning of the Takings Clause—seems to be the least controversial of the questions posed by the parties’ merits briefs.  The question that is drawing the most attention is whether a temporary flood invasion should be treated like all other temporary physical takings (for which the Court has already established a test as set out in the PLF/Cato Institute/ALF amicus brief), or whether the Court should…

Continue Reading Shifting Gears In SCOTUS Takings Case: Are Floods Treated As Physical Invasions, Or Analyzed Under Penn Central?

Greenwire’s Lawrence Hurley has posted his preview of next week’s Supreme Court arguments in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).

In Ark. girds for showdown with Army Corps over forest flooding, Hurley writes:

The Supreme Court’s job is to decide whether temporary flooding of the type that occurred at the Black River site can constitute a “taking,” which is generally viewed as a permanent loss of property.

Or as Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, rephrased the question: “When a tree falls in a forest due to temporary flooding, does it make a sound for which you can recover under the takings clause?”

The story details some of the personalities on the property owner side, and is worth reading. Continue Reading Greenwire Previews SCOTUS Takings Case