High court's blow to wetlands laws could boomerang, critics warn

  • Article by: DAVID PETERSON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 26, 2013 - 1:39 AM

Supreme Court decision on case involving wetlands development could affect Minnesotans.


In a narrowly decided case that could have consequences in Minnesota and other wetlands-heavy states, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Florida property owner who asserted that demands from local government in exchange for developing environmentally sensitive land were unreasonable.

“I don’t want to get emotional in a manner unbecoming to counsel,” said Michael Welch, whose law firm represents wetlands regulatory agencies, “but this one’s pushing me, man. The impact could be incredibly far-reaching.”

The central question was whether a government could require developers to make monetary concessions, such as paying to improve wetlands elsewhere, in exchange for permission to develop wetlands on their own property. Such trade-offs are common in Minnesota.

Attorneys for cities and other regulatory authorities warned that the net result could easily be a boomerang effect, in which local governments simply clamp down on developing valuable wetlands rather than offer the kind of compromise that got the Florida agency in trouble.

“The tendency, in Nancy Reagan’s phrase, is going to be to ‘Just say no,’ ” said John Baker of the Greene Espel law firm, who teaches land use law at the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul.

Baker said the court “repeatedly tried to debunk a twisted, turned-upside-down version” of the defendants’ case, while offering “cheap-shot, dismissive criticisms of their weakest arguments.”

Attorney Peter Coyle, who represents Twin Cities homebuilders, disagreed.

“The court,” he said, “clearly saw as extortion — my word, not theirs — the attempt by the watershed authority here to demand things that were not clearly related to this project, as a price of approving it. And that issue is one that developers here confront all the time.”

Opens door to suits

Both sides agree that the case carries special force in states like Florida and Minnesota in which wetlands are prevalent and often get in the way of development.

The case before the Supreme Court — Coy Koontz vs. the St. Johns River Water Management District — stems from a dispute near Orlando in which a landowner sought permits to develop wetlands. State law requires applicants to offset the resulting environmental damage.

Koontz offered to give the district a conservation easement on nearly three-quarters of his property. The district insisted he either reduce his development and enlarge the district’s easement, or pay for improvements to other wetlands several miles away. He then accused the agency of an “unreasonable exercise of the state’s police power constituting a taking without just compensation.”

The high court majority agreed it was unfair, and said that stricter limits on such monetary demands “will not work a revolution in land use law or unduly limit the discretion of local authorities to implement sensible land use regulations.”

John Jaschke, executive director of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, said the 5-4 Koontz decision won’t have an immediate effect on Minnesota’s wetland management, because it was a Florida law in question. But, he said, it does open the door to similar lawsuits in Minnesota that might force the issue here.

“It has that potential,” he said.

Minnesota law provides three options for property owners who want to remove or develop wetlands. They can do mitigation on their own property by adding or improving wetlands; they can do the same for another property owner within the same watershed; or they can buy wetland credits and add to the state’s inventory of wetlands through a banking system.

Ours is an era, said Welch, of the Smith Partners firm, in which there’s a growing tendency to prefer large-scale, well-managed wetlands complexes vs. just scattered and often degraded ones that are often in the way of development. So there’s logic behind asking developers to help maintain other wetlands, even far from the original site.

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions


New England 2/1/15 5:30 PM
Detroit 69 FINAL
Philadelphia 89
Portland 94 FINAL
Cleveland 99
Sacramento 102 FINAL
Toronto 119
Boston 98 FINAL
Minnesota 110
Dallas 94 FINAL
Houston 99
Denver 93 FINAL
New Orleans 85
Brooklyn 102 FINAL
Atlanta 113
Oklahoma City 92 FINAL
New York 100
Charlotte 86 FINAL
San Antonio 95
LA Clippers 94 FINAL
Utah 89
Washington 98 FINAL
Phoenix 106
Toronto 1 FINAL(SO)
New Jersey 2
Pittsburgh 0 FINAL
Washington 4
Chicago 3 FINAL
Los Angeles 4
Temple 86 FINAL
UCF 62
Winthrop 75 FINAL
Coastal Carolina 68
Lafayette 59 FINAL
Colgate 54
Northeastern 60 FINAL
Drexel 65
Wake Forest 76 FINAL
Florida State 82
Rhode Island 64 FINAL
Fordham 63
Delaware 82 FINAL
James Madison 88
South Carolina 58 FINAL
LSU 64
New Hampshire 63 FINAL
Maine 58
Seton Hall 80 FINAL
Marquette 70
Binghamton 68 FINAL
American Univ 54 FINAL
Navy 64
Elon 65 FINAL
UNC-Wilmington 82
Wright State 76 FINAL
Oakland 84
Minnesota 58 FINAL
Penn State 63
Duquesne 55 FINAL
Richmond 86
South Florida 52
Hartford 66 FINAL
Stony Brook 72
Albany 47 FINAL
Vermont 44
Hofstra 79 FINAL
William & Mary 100
UNC-Asheville 74 FINAL
Longwood 64
Radford 84 FINAL
Char Southern 77
Holy Cross 0 Postponed
Loyola-Maryland 0
Duke 73 FINAL
Notre Dame 77
Texas Tech 36 FINAL
Oklahoma 81
Oregon State 55 FINAL
Arizona State 73
Morehead State 82 FINAL
Austin Peay 69
Drake 69 FINAL
Bradley 57
Lehigh 62 FINAL
Bucknell 68
Rice 48 FINAL
Houston 59
Missouri State 57 FINAL
Illinois State 67
Loyola-Chicago 47 FINAL
Wichita State 58
Nebraska Omaha 64 FINAL
South Dakota St 86
Northern Iowa 59 FINAL
Southern Ill 52
Louisville 81 FINAL
Boston College 72
St Johns 74 FINAL
Creighton 77
East Carolina 58 FINAL
Memphis 70
Georgia Tech 70 FINAL
Miami-Florida 50
Miss State 73 FINAL
Ole Miss 79
Clemson 68 FINAL
NC State 57
Indiana 67 FINAL
Purdue 83
Kansas 64 FINAL
TCU 61
Oregon 56 FINAL
Arizona 90
Air Force 66 FINAL
San Jose St 52
Stanford 84 FINAL
Washington 74
Rider 56 FINAL
Siena 49
Dayton 76 FINAL
Richmond 62
Eastern Kentucky 53 FINAL
Jacksonville St 73
Saint Josephs 0 Postponed
Saint Louis 0
Binghamton 55
Akron 60 FINAL
Ohio U 72
Ball State 72 FINAL
Miami-Ohio 55
Memphis 56 FINAL
Cincinnati 44
East Carolina 32 FINAL
(2) Connecticut 87
Murray State 59 FINAL
Eastern Illinois 75
Kent State 63 FINAL
Central Michigan 65
UT Martin 64 FINAL
Tennessee St 58
Eastern Michigan 56 FINAL
Western Mich 83
Bucknell 61 FINAL
Lehigh 76
Indiana 57 FINAL
Michigan State 72
Colgate 56 FINAL
Lafayette 58
Fordham 66 FINAL
Davidson 45
Duquesne 76 FINAL
St Bonaventure 64
George Mason 66 FINAL
VA Commonwealth 70
Detroit 59 FINAL
Youngstown St 58
Army 0 Postponed
Boston U 0
Loyola-Maryland 0 Postponed
Holy Cross 0
Tulsa 74
Oklahoma St 54 FINAL
Kansas State 52
West Virginia 57 FINAL
Texas Tech 73
Denver 56 FINAL
South Dakota 82
Northwestern St 46 FINAL
Central Arkansas 63
Austin Peay 67 FINAL
SIU-Edwardsville 87
Kansas 61 FINAL
Iowa State 56
Bowling Green 50 FINAL
Northern Ill 67
Penn State 64 FINAL
Minnesota 75
San Jose St 80 FINAL
Air Force 83
Boise State 82 FINAL
Colorado State 83
Utah State 51 FINAL
Wyoming 86
San Diego State 50 FINAL
Fresno State 57
Nevada 52 FINAL


question of the day

Poll: Which of these teams is the most frustrating to watch right now?

Weekly Question





Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters