The Latest Endangered Species Scam to Hit the Florida Keys

Two weeks ago, around June 4, 2012, Monroe County flooded landowners' mailboxes with a document entitled "Parcels Located Within Federally Protected Species Focus Areas -- Proposed Adoption of Ordinance to Implement Permit Referral Process." At the root of this document is the fact that the County stuck its head in the sand in 1990 when the National Wildlife Federation, et al., sued the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) in the United States District Court in Miami. On August 25, 1994, the District Court ruled in favor of the environmental groups, and ordered the federal agencies to clean up their acts, as it were.

After the 1994 decision, the USF&WS and FEMA dragged their heels for many years, until 2005, when the District Court slammed the agencies for said foot-dragging. The 2005 decision shut down FEMA's authority to issue federal flood insurance in the Florida Keys on those properties that were deemed important to the Keys' rabbits, mice, and -- most importantly -- Key deer. After waiting a few years, Monroe County tried to intervene in the appeal of the 2005 decision, and was rejected. One presumes that anyone who sat on their rights to intervene for 15 years, from 1990 to 2005, probably wasn't going to get a seat at the table in this litigation. And the County's request for leave to intervene was, not surprisingly, summarily dismissed.

There is a lot more to this story, but I have an appellate brief to finish in the next week. As I have told several people this week, the County doesn't have a seat at the table in this fracas. And, even though County notices have been going out to people who own affected properties in the Village of Islamorada and the City of Marathon, the County's proposed action will not affect the Islamorada and Marathon landowners. 

The County is facing a June 30, 2012 deadline to adopt the ordinance it proposes in its June 4 notice. I would suggest that owners of vacant property in the unincorporated County might want to attend the County Commission's June 20, 2012 hearing (at 3:00 PM). You may not get an opportunity to be heard, but you might get some information on what is being proposed.

Is FEMA Forcing Monroe County to Pay Millions for Regulatory Takings as the Price of Maintaining Flood Insurance in the County?

On Christmas Eve 2011, the Florida Keys Keynoter published an article entitled "County to Sue FEMA Over Habitat Inspections." One wonders how Monroe County even figured out it had a problem --- even though the Florida Key Deer sued the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1990. 

In that case, the Key Deer, through their human spokesman, sued to prohibit the issuance of federal flood insurance in areas where Key Deer habitat existed. A summary judgment hearing was held, in Key West, on August 25, 1994. I assume the Key West Citizen let the locals know that a bunch of deer were trying to stop development in the Florida Keys. Monroe County, on the other hand, made no effort to intervene in the lawsuit.

Following the hearing, U.S. District Judge Michael Moore entered summary judgment in favor of the Key Deer, and against FEMA, ordering FEMA to "consult with" the USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) within 30 days. The agencies were required to determine whether the implementation of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP] was "likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered Key Deer." See Florida Key Deer, et al. v.Stickney, 864 F. Supp. 1222 (DC SD Fla., 1994).

Several people have asked why Monroe County did not move to intervene in the 1990 Key Deer lawsuit. There is a simple answer for this. After the huge changes in land development regulations that Monroe County went through from February 1982 through September 1986, including more than 100 public hearings (or one every two weeks for four years), Florida Keys landowners were worn out. In addition, all the 1990 Key Deer lawsuit sought to accomplish was to require FEMA to "consult" with USFWS. 

In 1990, USFWS was adamantly opposed to FEMA issuing flood insurance policies in the Florida Keys. As time went on, USFWS began to waiver, and it ultimately decided to "work with" FEMA. One could probably look at Washington, DC, politics between 1990 and 2005, and figure out who was doing what to whom, but that is a story for another day (and another blogger).

Nothing much occurred for the next 15 years, until the Key Deer plaintiffs sought, and Judge Moore granted, a permanent injunction against both FEMA and the USFWS. The injunction was to be lifted after the agencies "have complied with the [court's] order." As part of the order, the federal agencies were to provide the court with a list of all the properties in the Florida Keys that are "suitable habitat for the Listed Species." By 2005, the list had grown to eight species: the Key Largo cotton mouse, Key Deer, Key Largo woodrat, Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Schaus' swallowtail butterfly, silver rice rat, Stock Island tree snail, and Key tree cactus. See Florida Key Deer, et al, v. Brown, et al., 386 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (DC SD Fla. 2005), affirmed, 522 F. 3d 1133 (11th Cir., 2008).

Monroe County finally woke up in 2005 -- not because the County was asleep, but because the County was beginning to understand the concept of "regulatory taking" jurisprudence. It frantically sought to become a defendant in Florida Key Deer v. Brown, supra, but Judge Moore rejected the County's effort -- saying it was too little, too late, and that after waiting 15 years to intervene, the County's options had run out. In an attempt to appear meaningful, Monroe County appeared as an amicus in the 11th Circuit's appeal of Judge Moore's 2005 decision.

The future is not clear as to Monroe County. But what is this hullabaloo all about? First, we note that many parts of the United States were denied federal flood Insurance in 1989. These are coastal areas deemed "too sensitive" for development for a variety of reasons, and are in the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). No Name Key, just east of Big Pine Key, is such an area. There are several other parts of the Keys that were, or almost were, designated as CBRS zones in 1989.

The federal flood insurance program does not reach the CBRS areas, yet those areas continue to be developed, with or without some form of flood insurance. If people want to own a house on a beach, they are in an income bracket in which they can afford to purchase private flood insurance. What difference does it make whether a Federal flood insurance prohibition or a CBRS prohibition prevents private landowners from obtaining inexpensive flood insurance from the federal government? These landowners are going to build anyway.

Monroe County has had a schizophrenic County Commission since 1990 -- which happens to be when the CBRS and flood insurance fiascos started (and I started practicing law here in 1983). The County's latest threat, as County Attorney Bob Shillinger put it, is:

"We'll file suit and seek an injunction to stop [FEMA's request to Monroe County to determine which parcels are located in endangered species habitat]." Why, I am not sure. The County also puts a price tag on the issue, quoting County Administrator Roman Gastesi, stating:

• "the real exposure comes in possible takings cases in which landowners claim they can't build on their land because the County denied use of the land through the Endangered Species Act. They could then sue the County for the value of their land."

Now, I am the first person who would sue the County under Mr. Gastesi's theory, if it made sense. But, these are federal regulations, and they don't actually deprive landowners of anything other than subsidized federal flood insurance -- which is not within the County's purview. On the other hand, I do not pretend to be a genius, and I would be willing to listen to the County's theories. The invitation is theirs to accept or reject.

On that note, I wish everyone a Happy New Year! (And it lies less than an hour away.)

Nollan-Dolan Exactions May See More Play

Since 1976, the State of Florida and the Monroe County (Florida Keys) Commission have imposed ever-increasing restrictions on the use of Florida Keys property -- using regulatory authority to confiscate private property without paying Just Compensation -- on the fuzzy theory that this will somehow better the universe (at no cost to the State and County taxpayers). The major shift took place on September 15, 1986, when the State "approved" a confiscatory comprehensive plan (that was written by the State) that prohibited the development of thousands of legally-platted lots within the Florida Keys, and downzoned thousands more.

In 1987 and 1994, the Supreme Court issued two regulatory taking opinions that did little more than muddy the waters. The 1987 decision, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825, stemmed from a request for a building permit to rebuild the Nollans' oceanfront property with a larger residence. The California Coastal Commission acquiesced on the condition that the Nollans dedicate a portion of their property as a "viewing easement," that would allow passers-by to see the ocean from the street in front of the Nollans' home. Though many landowners had caved in to the Coastal Commission's demands, the Nollans sued, claiming the easement was an unconstitutional exaction. The Supreme Court agreed, explaining that a permit "condition" must be related to the "impact" of the development approved by said permit. In Nollan, the Supreme Court could not see a connection between the enlargement of the Nollan's home, and the need for passers-by to see the ocean.

In their 1994 decision. Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, the Supreme Court supplemented the Nollan "connection," with a Dolan "proportionality" requirement for exactions imposed on private property owners. The Dolan decision has always been difficult to articulate. However, the 2006-2008 Utah Supreme Court has done a nice job explaining Dolan.

In B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County (I), 128 P. 3d 1161 (Utah 2006), and B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County (II), 196 P. 3d 601 (Utah 2008), the Utah Supreme Court reduced the Dolan "proportionality" requirement to dollars. In short, if the cost to the taxpayer exceeds the costs of its improvements (to the public), the taxpayer has been impermissibly overcharged. The difference is a Fifth Amendment taking.

The Key Deer Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is Invalid for Non-compliance with the Information Quality Act.

The Florida Key deer were listed as an endangered species in 1967. Since then, the herd has increased in numbers and the individual deer have become heavier and healthier today than they were in 1970. See Harveson, et al., "Impacts of urbanization on Florida Key deer behavior and population dynamics," 134 Biological Conservation 321-331 (2007), available at http://www.sciencedirect.com. Harveson, et al., concluded Key deer prefer urbanized habitat on Big Pine Key, and that, in 2003, they were 10% heavier than those living in 1973.

On July 9, 2006, the State of Florida and Monroe County, which includes the Florida Keys, obtained an "incidental take permit" (ITP) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS), ostensibly to protect the Key deer and the Playboy bunny (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) from the ravages of human civilization. The only "scientific" basis for the ITP is an April 2006 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), prepared by Monroe County and the State of Florida.

The HCP relies solely on a chapter on population viability analysis (PVA), that the HCP's authors apparently lifted directly from Dr. Roel Lopez's 2001 Ph.D. dissertation, "Population Ecology of Florida Key Deer," Texas A&M University 2001. PVA calculations have become popular with conservation biologists, in part because there are at least five "canned" computer programs that will spit out apparent "results" without any regard for their accuracy -- or lack thereof.

The consensus amongst the mathematically capable is that one cannot obtain reliable extinction probabilities unless one has collected 5 to 10 years of data for every year to be projected; i.e., to project survival probabilities 50 years in the future, one would need 250 to 500 years of field data on the species in question. (The answer is "no," he did not have adequate data to calculate a PVA.) Dr. Lopez's 50- and 100-year PVA projections are subject to such huge error ranges that the means (or medians, as in the dissertation) are meaningless. Ergo, we have a classic nonsensical theory, "garbage in, garbage out," and a herd of bureaucrats depriving thousands of humans of their land and fortune (though the Key deer thrive in a developed environment).

Fortunately, an obscure federal statute prohibits the use of "garbage in, garbage out" theories in federal programs. Sec. 515(a) of Pub. L. 106-554 (2001), requires all Federal agencies to develop policies and procedures for "ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information" produced by said agencies.

Sec. 515(a) is known as the "Information Quality Act (IQA)," or by some agencies, the "Data Quality Act (DQA)." As OMB stated in its Federal Register Notice on the IQA regulations, 67 Fed. Reg. 8452-60 (Feb 22, 2002), when scientific information (data and analytical results) is relied on by a federal agency, "the original and supporting data shall be generated, and the analytical results shall be developed, using sound statistical and research methods."

Data and analytical results must be subjected to "peer review." In the scientific community, peer review involves submitting one's research to a respected scientific journal, where a scientist-editor will select (usually three) reviewers who regularly publish papers in the same field as the paper to be reviewed, to critically review and comment on the submission. Comments flow back and forth among the author, the editor, and the reviewers, and the paper is ultimately either published, published as modified, or rejected.

By now you have figured out that Ph.D. dissertations (including mine, in 1969) are not "peer reviewed," and do not qualify as "good science" under the 2001 Information Quality Act. Dr. Lopez purposely broke his dissertation into discrete chapters, each of which could stand on its own. He submitted individual chapters to scientific journals for peer review and, hopefully, publication. From 2002 through 2006, according to his curriculum vitae, Dr. Lopez was the senior author on five peer reviewed papers on Key deer, and a co-author on eight more. To his credit, NOT ONE of these 13 peer-reviewed papers (that's a lot!) mentions the PVA in his dissertation. I assume Dr. Lopez recognized the weaknesses in his computer-driven PVA, and published his strength, rather than canned PVA numbers.

So what's next? A reasonable move would be a petition to the USF&WS to rescind the 2006 Incidental Take Permit. The Service's IQA rules require it to respond to such a petition within 90 days after receipt of a petition from an "affected person." The rules also provide for an internal appeal, submitted within 21 days of the initial decision, if petitioner is not satisfied with the Service's response. The appeal must be completed within 60 days. If a petitioner is not satisfied with that decision, he or she may bring an action, against the Service, in federal court.

Casitas Municipal Water District Revisited

On May 10, 2009, I wrote about the Federal Circuit's decision in Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States, where a local water district has successfully litigated a 5th Amendment taking claim against the United States for diverting water to provide a better life for endangered steelhead trout (and their human and wild predators, one may assume). I noted that the time to file a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court had not run. Well, that time has come and gone, and no petition was filed. The Solicitor General obtained two extensions of time to file the petition. The second extension expired July 17, 2009, and no petition was filed by the United States.

It should come as no surprise that endangered species litigation usually goes to the critters (although sometimes the plaintiffs' motives are suspect, and the public wins). I cannot recollect a taking case where the critters' keepers had to pay just compensation, but I can tick off many where the landowner had to grin and bear it. (Casitas is a physical taking case, so watch out.)

Casitas widens the open door for our class action on Big Pine and No Name Keys, where the Key deer and the Lower Keys marsh rabbits have been handed the keys to more than 1,000 vacant properties by none other than Monroe County, Florida. This confiscatory behavior extends to the rest of the Florida Keys, albeit with a less Draconian flair.

The Federal Circuit's 2-to-1 decision rests on a "physical taking" theory (water, of course), and former Chief Judge Mayer hammered on that point in his "dissent-in-part." Casitas will probably be most helpful in those situations where landowners cannot use any of their property -- thus establishing a Lucas-style categorical (or per-se) taking. What Casitas adds to landowners' quivers is the ability to strip away the mystique that some see when they hear the words "endangered species."

Reverse Endangered Species Act Claim

In a comedic regulatory taking "defense," government counsel opposing our client's regulatory taking claim in Galleon Bay Corp. v. Monroe County & the State of Florida, are attempting to pin the tail on the federal government donkey, arguing "the US Fish & Wildlife Service made us do it."

Most land use attorneys know the USF&WS abhors "regulatory taking" issues because it doesn't have the money to buy "regulatory condemned" property and, if it were to do so, the F&WS would pay for the property out of the agency's regular budget. That means salaries and overhead suffer if a taking claim occurred. So ... what is going on here?

Apparently, the Monroe County Attorney, Suzanne Hutton, and Florida's Attorney General (and gubernatorial candidate), Bill McCollum, never got it. We have been served with a motion to dismiss, based on those politicians' nonsensical theory that the USF&WS "took" the subject property (on No Name Key) by "requiring" the County and State to apply for an Incidental Take Permit ("ITP") for the widening and fencing of US-1 on Big Pine Key, in Monroe County, Florida (the Florida Keys).

Just to bring everyone up to speed, the Endangered Species Act (ESA, adopted in Richard Nixon's administration) places burdens on government, not private sector, activities that affect listed species. Private development activities are not subject to the ESA, but landowners can apply for an ITP if they are concerned about the survival of an endangered species after their project has been completed.

As no landowner is required to apply for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), no ITP is required for a private developer to build homes on No Name Key -- which already has nearly 60 homes -- or anywhere else, for that matter. Thus, there is no federal law or regulation that requires owners of Galleon Bay lots to obtain an ITP. Monroe County and the State took it upon themselves to obtain an ITP for the hundreds of vacant lot owners on Big Pine and No Name Keys, for the sole purpose of acquiring those parcels at fire-sale prices.

Federal Circuit Finds Fifth Amendment Taking by Endangered Species Act

In Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276 (2008), rehearing denied, 556 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Federal Claims -- opinion at 76 Fed. Cl. 100 (2007) -- holding that an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment has occurred.

... there is no doubt that the preservation of the habitat of an endangered species is for government and third party use -- the public -- which serves a public purpose. .... when the government forces Casitas to divert water away from the Robles-Casitas Canal to the fish ladder for the public purpose of protecting the West Coast Steelhead Trout, this is a governmental use of the water.

Every environmental NGO in the country filed amicus briefs in Casitas. Though I haven't read them all, it's just the same old song -- "endangered species are entitled to more Constitutional protection than are citizens of the United States." That just ain't so, and the Federal Circuit has so held.

This brings me to Monroe County's latest fiasco on Big Pine Key and No-Name Key. The County and the State of Florida teamed up to develop a BPK-NNK Habitat Conservation Plan to "protect" the endangered key deer and the Playboy marsh rabbits, that prohibits essentially all use of approximately 1,000 acres of undeveloped, privately-owned land. This confiscatory County/State HCP was submitted to the US Fish & Wildlife Service as part of an application for an Incidental Take Permit. Always happy to accept land donations, the USF&WS issued the ITP -- that recites verbatim the conditions in the County/State HCP.

The problem with this scenario is that the County and the State did not have any ownership interest in the land they donated to the F&WS to "save" the key deer and Playboy bunnies. Ooops? You bet! The only difference between the BPK-NNK HCP and Casitas Mun. Water District v. United States is that Casitas is a physical taking (because the water is physically taken from Casitas and given to the fish) and BPK-NNK is a regulatory taking.

Meanwhile, we have a class action lawsuit pending in state court (Lightner, et al. v. Monroe County and the State of Florida), alleging a regulatory taking of those 1,000 acres on BPK-NNK, that should benefit substantially from this excellent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

As we see it, the County and State can rescind their confiscatory regulations and pay temporary taking damages to those who have sought development approvals since the regulations went into effect. Or they can pay out more than $200 million in compensation for a permanent taking of 1,000 acres on Big Pine Key and No-Name Key.

PS. The US Court of Federal Claims (CFC) has exclusive jurisdiction over all inverse condemnation claims -- in excess of $10,000 -- brought against the United States. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals hears all appeals from the CFC. Yours truly has been admitted to practice before the CFC since 1985, and the Federal Circuit since 1990.

NOTE ADDED August 10, 2009. The U.S. Solicitor General (Elena Kagan) requested two extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari in Casitas Municipal Water District. The second extension ended July 17, 2009 -- 24 days ago -- and no petition has been docketed by the Supreme Court. Looks like the Casitas battle goes to the property owners.