In a regulatory taking case filed in 1994 against the District, Mr. Koontz, claimed that the District deprived him of the economically viable use of his property when it denied his permit applications to fill 3.7 acres for commercial development.  Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, case no. CI 94-5673  (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct.).  Koontz specifically alleged that the stringent permitting requirements imposed by the rules of the District required him to hold his property for the public purpose of protecting plant, animal, and wildlife habitat without just compensation. 

     Koontz owns 14.9 acres in Orange County.  His property consists largely of high quality wetlands. Koontz proposed on-site preservation to offset the impacts of his development via a conservation easement or deed restriction over the remaining undeveloped portion.  Given Koontz’ limited on-site mitigation proposal, the rules would only allow Koontz to develop 0.7 acres of wetlands and 0.3 acre of uplands, not the 3.7 acres that Koontz was proposing for development.  However, the District recommended alternative designs to his project including decreasing the amount of clearing and filling.  The alternative designs would reduce impacts to the extent that his project could be permitted with only his proposed on-site mitigation.  Additionally, the District suggested alternative mitigation plans, including off-site mitigation restoration, enhancement and preservation.  Koontz rejected these alternatives, stating that all the mitigation plans proposed by the District would deny economically viable use of his property.  Consequently, the District denied Koontz’ permit applications as proposed. 

     Koontz did not appeal or administratively challenge the District’s final orders of June 1994 (File of Record Nos. 94-1498 and 94-1499).  However, Koontz did file a civil action in Orange County Circuit Court.  His second Amended Complaint alleged four counts: (I) that §§ 373.413 and 373.415 (4) and (5), Fla. Stat., constitute invalid delegations of legislative authority; (II) that § 373.414(1), Fla. Stat., is facially vague; (III) that the District’s denial of the permit application constituted a temporary and permanent taking of his property without just compensation; and (IV) that the right of privacy clause in Article I, Section 23, Fla. Constit., protects property owners from police power regulation. 

     The court granted the District’s motion to dismiss the second Amended Complaint, dismissing all counts with prejudice.  Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, case no. CI 94-5673  (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. October 29, 1997).  The court held that §§ 373.413 and 373.415 (4) and (5), Fla. Stat., do not unconstitutionally delegate authority; that § 373.414(1), Fla. Stat., is not vague; and that these provisions do not violate the right to privacy under in Article I, Section 23, Fla. Constit.  Id. at 9.    On the issue of regulatory taking, the court determined that the claim was not ripe due to the fact that the final order offered alternatives which Koontz did not pursue. 

     Koontz filed a notice of appeal on November 25, 1997. 
 

------------------------------ 
Cynthia A. Chritton is an attorney with the St. Johns River Water Management District concentrating in the area of regulatory litigation.  She received her B.S. from Texas A&M University, her M.S. in Forestry from Stephen F. Austin State University, and her J.D. from Seattle University.