Here’s an article worth reading, co-authored by our colleague Edward Thomas (no relation, although we often kid that Ed is our brother-in-the-law), President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association, and a fellow who is concerned both with anticipating natural hazards such as sea level rise, hurricanes, and the like, as well as property rights.
Thanks to permission from the Environmental Law Institute, which has has graciously allowed us to reproduce Ed’s latest from the National Wetlands Newsletter, we’re able to bring you “Turning Koontz Into an Opportunity for More Resilient Communities,” which posits that the sky is not falling because of the Supreme Court’s decision in that case:
Many did not see the positive side of Koontz when the decision was released. Almost immediately, many commentators viewed the case as a victory for property owners and a defeat for government regulation. Many alarmist articles were written quoting attorneys and well-recognized scholars in the legal community who predicted that the sky was falling as a result of the ruling. They claimed that the practice of subjecting monetary exactions to the Nollan/Dolan takings analysis would devastate land use planning and detract from the ability of local governments to negotiate for conditions that mitigate the impacts of proposed development.
Not quite, say Ed and his co-author:
In the past, agencies have enjoyed a deferential approach to their decisionmaking process. It is now vital for agencies to articulate the benefits, costs, and justifications for hazard mitigation. While agencies may view this extra work as a burden, providing this information can lead to increased community support for such projects. Communities will be able to witness firsthand the cost of development and the benefit of mitigation. In turn, this can lead to an increase in support for mitigation projects.
Read the entire article here, or below.