Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

In 1994, Coy A. Koontz requested a permit from St. John's River Water Management to develop more of his land than the original permit allowed. St. John's had jurisdiction over Koontz's land. St. John's agreed to issue the permit on the condition that Koontz deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and do some mitigation work on the surrounding areas. Koontz agreed to the deed but not to the mitigation work. St. John's denied the permit application.

Koontz sued St. John's River Water Management, and the trial court found in favor of Koontz. A Florida trial court held that St. John's actions effected a taking of Koontz land and that imposing requirements for the issuance of a permit is only constitutional if the required action serves the same governmental purpose as the ban on development. Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed.

Questions

Is the government liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a permit until the landowner has agreed to dedicate personal resources to a public use?

Conclusions

Yes. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the government may not conditionally approve land-use permits unless the conditions are connected to the land use and approximately proportional to the effects of the proposed land use. This standard even applies when the government does not approve the permit but instead demands that the condition be met before granting the permit. Such demands, which amount to asking for property or money from an applicant, place a burden the applicant’s ownership of the land. This burden diminishes the value of the land, which violates the Constitutional protections against having property taken without just compensation.

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the limitations on the government’s ability to conditionally approve land-use permits do not apply to monetary exactions. She also wrote that applying those limits would likely inhibit local governments’ ability to charge reasonable permitting fees. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in the dissent.