Supreme Court Rules Beach Additions Not Compensable Takings
Truckloads of sand will begin cascading across hurricane-battered beaches along the Destin and Walton County shorelines, thanks to a recent 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court. Coastal homeowners originally sued Florida arguing that the Beach Erosion Control Program (BECP) would cause the value of their homes to decline, turning their “oceanfront” property into “ocean view” property. Much to the dismay of residents, the Court ruled that the state may extend the eroded shorelines without compensating the homeowners for loss of private property.
The homeowners in Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (#08-1151) claimed that widening the beach without compensating the residents amounted to an unlawful taking of private property for public use. Although residents believed their land was unlawfully taken, a state law permits Florida to add sand to eroding beaches. Under this law, the state is permitted to increase the size of the beach and claim ownership of the new addition. All eight justices (Justice Stevens recused himself, likely because he owns oceanfront property in Ft. Lauderdale which is also under consideration for a BECP project) agreed that such action did not constitute a compensable taking. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, noted that the case turned on two Florida property law principles: “First, the State as owner of the submerged land adjacent to littoral property has the right to fill that land, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of the public and of littoral landowners. Second, if an avulsion exposes land seaward of littoral property that had previously been submerged, that land belongs to the State even if it interrupts the littoral owner’s contact with the water.” The Court concluded that since “the Florida Supreme Court’s decision did not contravene the established property rights of the petitioner’s members, Florida [did not violate] the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Doug Kendall, spokesman for the Constitutional Accountability Center, agreed with the decision, stating that “the Court’s ruling supports Florida’s efforts to restore eroded beaches and preserves the ability of state and local governments to respond to changing environmental conditions. It is crucially important that the government have the authority to step in to protect our beaches and coastal communities.”
While some may see this as an extension of recent Supreme Court decisions -- ala Kelo -- expanding the right of government to take private property for public use, Stop the Beach is actually a unique case that will likely have little impact on future takings jurisprudence. It arose from distinctive circumstances addressing littoral property under a Florida statute permitting erosion control actions by the state. And when Scalia sides with the state in a takings case, you can be sure the scope of victory is limited.
The .jpg)
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification by the 
That EXIT sign illuminating over the door could contain a radioactive gas called tritium, subjecting it to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or one of the Agreement States. The Agreement States have assumed limited regulatory jurisdiction over the use of radioactive materials. 
We have been following
Currently pending before the Ohio General Assembly is 
When it comes to taking care of our own health, all too often we rely upon reactive maintenance. For example, you ignore your doctor’s warnings and continue to eat fast food and fail to exercise on a semi-regular basis. You had the chance to help control the situation with some basic preventive maintenance, but you were too busy working and focused on more immediate issues. Now, crisis strikes suddenly in the form of a heart attack. Assuming you survive, you are now left with complicated reactive maintenance, hoping to repair the damage that has already been done. But could this have been avoided with simple preventive maintenance?
In December 2007, a Lake County Common Pleas Court judge issued a landmark decision holding, among other things, that an owner of real estate that touches Lake Erie owns title extending as far as the water’s edge. State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (2007), Lake County Common Pleas Case No. 04CV001080. Lake County is one of eight Ohio counties which contain Lake Erie shoreline.
US EPA has amended the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (“AAI”) to acknowledge another ASTM standard can be used to satisfy the AAI requirement for the landowner defenses to liability under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) – innocent landowners, bona fide prospective purchasers, and continuous property owners. In addition to ASTM International Standard E1527-05, you can now use, when applicable, ASTM International Standard E2247-08 entitled Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property (“ASTM E2247-08”).
In the past, we have spoken about grants and loans available through the 
Imagine purchasing a brand new home, only to discover it has a persistent rotten egg smell. On top of that, your new appliances mysteriously stop working and the home’s copper wiring turns black. It sounds like a nightmare, but for those in Florida and other southern states whose homes contain defective Chinese drywall, it is reality.
Recent activity in Washington, D.C. suggests that the federal government is moving one step closer to regulating greenhouse gas emissions..jpg)
On January 27, 2009, the front page of the Columbus Dispatch read, “
Recently at the January monthly .jpg)
If you are building new or renovating an existing building, you may have considered trying to obtain LEED certification for your project but decided after analyzing the cost that it was not within your budget. Well now, thanks to 
