The EPA has filed its merits brief in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062, the case in which Idaho property owners are asserting their right to challenge the agency’s assertion via a “compliance order” that a portion of their land are “wetlands” and that they violated the Clean Water Act.
The EPA’s brief asserts that
Yesterday, I gave an informal presentation to the Natural Resources Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association about the case currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the ability of property owners to challenge a determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that their property contained “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act, Sackett v.
A reminder: on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, from noon to 1:00 p.m., I’ll be making a presentation to the Natural Resources Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association about the case currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court about the ability of property owners to challenge a jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Here are the links to the cases and other items discussed today at the session Regulatory Takings – Looking Back and Looking Forward at the Cal State Bar’s Environmental Law Section’s Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite.
These cases are also in your written materials.
What is a property owner to do when faced with a regulatory agency asserting that its permission must be obtained before the property can be used, when the property owner believes that the agency does not have authority over her land?
According to the agency, the property owner has two choices: she can either file
The top-side brief and supporting amicus briefs have been filed in a case we’ve been following, PPL Montana v. Montana, No. 10-218 (cert. granted June 20, 2011).
In PPL Montana, LLC v. State of Montana, 229 P.3d 421 (Mont. Mar. 30, 2010), the Montana Supreme Court disregarded 100 years of private or
Mark your calendars: as part of the Fall Meeting of the ABA’s Section of State & Local Government Law in Tucson, on Thursday, September 22, I’ll be on a panel discussing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, “Ethical Considerations for Municipal Attorneys: Caught in the Crosshairs Reconciling the
Not the California Court of Appeals, Second District. Edna Valley Watch v. County of San Luis Obispo, No. B223653 (Aug 2, 2011), slip op. at 2, n.2 .
Oh yeah, the holding: administrative proceedings are “actions” thus entitling parties — opponents of the building of a church — who participated in those proceedings and
It’s a well-worn refrain, heard often in the environmental context: “The property owner wouldn’t be in this fix if she just ___________.” Fill in the blank with “commissioned an Environmental Assessment” — or “Environmental Impact Statement,” or “applied for a development permit,” or similar.
At first blush, it’s an appealing argument — “Just follow the
In Levine v. Town of Sterling, No. 18470 (Apr. 12, 2011), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a property owner need not show that his property was rendered worthless or that he made “capital investment” to prove that he relied on a resolution by the town’s board of selectmen that he could build more