Supreme Court rule for Florida property owner in land use case

[Igel]

13. It started before that.

Back in the '80s the church I was in saved up and bought an old guy's rump of a farm. He'd sold off much of it for individual houses. His little piece was kept for a barn with chickens and the occasional turkey and a horsepasture.

The church wanted to put up a building. It saved for the materials and building costs and when it went for a permit found that in the intervening year or so some EPA person had seen a waterfowl using puddles. It was Oregon. At certain times of the rainy season it might have puddles for a few days. He declared it to be a goose migrating in February. Geese don't migrate in February, but a farmer nearby had geese. Didn't matter. The EPA ruling was "wetlands."

As wetland, it couldn't be used for construction unless a wetland of the same size was built someplace (the wetland to be build had requirements, and was a nicer wetland that the puddly horsemeadow). The horse had been removed, so the grandfather provision said the horsepasture couldn't be used for livestock.

The church was stuck with a few acres of land that it couldn't dispose of for anything near it was bought for, couldn't build on, and had a house, yard and barn to maintain.

Courts at the time had ruled this wouldn't have been a "taking." The church, however, certainly felt "took"--not by the seller, but by the EPA.