The Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District said that money is property, can be taken, and no one agrees what happens next. The case has been going on for 20 years and is now in limbo in Florida courts. This article suggests that Florida should follow a Washington state law to minimize the impact of the Koontz decision, especially on local governments. The Washington state law could provide a good model for how to deal with Koontz claims. Florida changed its rules for how wetlands are protected after Koontz started going through the permit process. The state realized that its old standards for determining how much wetland protection was needed were not working well. They created a new method, UMAM, to help make sure wetlands are properly protected. This should help prevent issues like the one Koontz faced from happening in the future. In Florida, the rules for managing water and land development have changed a lot since the Koontz case. The water management districts have reorganized the areas they regulate to better match how water flows and ecosystems work. They also made new rules to make sure that any changes or damage from development can be fixed or balanced out. This means that developers have to be careful about how they impact the environment, and they have to make sure they fix any problems they cause. This should help prevent situations like the one in the Koontz case from happening again. Although there are still issues with developers not being happy with the rules, the changes should help protect the environment from being harmed. This article suggests that Florida should consider using Washington’s developer exaction statute as a guide for making decisions about requiring developers to mitigate the impact of their projects on wetlands. Washington’s law limits the fees and taxes that local governments can impose on developers, and provides clear rules for how to interpret the law. Florida already has laws in place that require local governments to protect natural resources, so using Washington’s statute could help make the rules clearer for everyone involved. Florida’s growth management laws require local governments to protect wetlands in their plans. They must analyze and consider the impact of land uses on wetlands, and if incompatible uses are allowed, they must find ways to make up for the lost wetland functions. This can be a challenge for smaller local governments. Washington’s laws could help protect them from legal issues like the ones in the Koontz case. In 2007, Professor Dan Tarlock wrote an important essay about the need to better connect land use regulations with environmental protection. He said that the current regulations don’t do enough to protect the environment. Florida should consider making clearer rules, like Washington has, to make it easier for local governments to protect wetlands. Otherwise, they might run into legal problems like in the Koontz case. In Washington, local governments cannot impose taxes or fees on construction or development, unless it is specifically allowed by other laws. However, they can require developers to dedicate land or make a payment to mitigate the impact of their development. This law does not limit the ability of local governments to impose special assessments on properties that directly benefit from the development. The second part of the law says that the government can only make you give up land or easements if it’s directly related to the development you’re planning. This is similar to the Nollan/Dolan case. In 1982, the Washington Legislature changed a law that allowed local governments to impose fees on developers. The change made sure that the fees were only for costs related to the development and not just to make money. Then in 1990, the Legislature passed the Growth Management Act, which made rules for how land can be used. It requires local governments to protect important natural areas, like wetlands, using the best scientific information available. The state of Washington has a program for managing land use. It requires local governments to designate and protect critical areas based on state guidelines. Washington’s approach is different from Oregon’s and relies on citizens and courts for enforcement. The state also allows impact fees for development, but they must be based on the actual impact of the project. In Washington, there are laws that require local governments to show a connection between the impacts of development and the regulations they impose. One case, Citizensâ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, showed that a county ordinance limiting clearing on rural residential land was not required by state law and didn’t show a connection between the clearing limits and the impact of development. Another case struck down a local ordinance that required 30% of land for open space without considering the specific needs of the development. These laws require local governments to show that their regulations are necessary for specific impacts of development. The Florida Legislature should consider passing a law similar to a Washington statute to protect property rights. This law would give property owners a way to take legal action if the government burdens their property. It would also create a process to resolve disputes over land use and the environment. This law could give the government options to fix the problem or pay the property owner if they can’t prove the burden is necessary. Even if a decision takes less time, property owners could still have a case if the delay is significant. This kind of law has been supported by a Supreme Court case from the 1980s. In short, the Koontz case in Florida may not have as big of an impact on the environment as expected, because of new tools and expertise. Florida should consider a law similar to Washington’s to help local governments with wetlands decisions. The author proposed bills in 2013 and 2014 that were based on the Washington law. After the Koontz case is settled, Florida might want to revisit this idea. The article talks about laws in Washington state that deal with managing growth and protecting the environment. It discusses different court cases and how they have interpreted these laws. It also talks about using scientific information to decide how to protect important habitats. It mentions the role of state and local government in protecting wetlands. Finally, it discusses a Supreme Court case about how delays in making decisions about land use can affect property rights. This column is from the Environmental and Land Use Law Section. It aims to teach lawyers about their duty to the public and how to improve the legal system. The section is led by Kelly Kathleen Samek and edited by Susan Roeder Martin.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/can-a-washington-state-statute-cure-floridas-local-government-exposure-under-koontz-v-st-johns-river-water-management-district/
Leave a Reply