Farm Bureau Joins Property Rights Case

September 21

The American Farm Bureau Federation has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the rights of landowners in a United States Supreme Court property case – Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Joined in the brief by state Farm Bureaus from California and Nevada, AFBF is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court that ruled landowners near Lake Tahoe, CA, were ineligible for compensation after "temporary and rolling" restrictions stripped their ability to use their property. The circuit court decision in question reversed a district court ruling that the landowners were entitled to compensation.

In the Tahoe-Sierra case, approximately 450 owners of residentially zoned and improved lots near Lake Tahoe are involved. According to Farm Bureau's brief, the landowners sued for compensation when the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, "through a rolling series of moratoriums and ordinances, blocked them from building homes."

A moratorium on development, which lasted for almost three years and was aimed at protecting water quality, entitled the landowners to compensation for the lost use of their property, even though the prohibitions were more temporary in nature, according to Farm Bureau.

Farm Bureau stated that the matter of temporary takings in this case is "of great practical importance" to farmers "because many takings (impacting agriculture) are only temporary in nature." The brief cited instances of "temporary" regulations and restrictions related to wetlands and endangered species habitat that frequently impact farmers.

Farm Bureau argues that rather than honor precedents established by the Supreme Court that "there is no difference between a temporary taking and a permanent taking" in regard to compensation, the Ninth Circuit Court chose to "rewrite Supreme Court precedent."

"Seemingly, (the Supreme Court) could not have made itself more clear on the matter that the constitutional guarantees of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause protect all uncompensated takings – even where the public use behind the regulation is for environmental protection and is temporary," Farm Bureau stated.

In a landmark 1987 decision in the case "First English vs. Los Angeles," the Supreme Court held that "the government must compensate the owners of private property taken for public purposes. The Court concluded that the Fifth Amendment dealt with all takings, regulatory as well as physical, and, critical to this case, temporary as well as permanent," according to Farm Bureau.

"The Ninth Circuit got it wrong in Tahoe-Sierra," Farm Bureau stated. "The Fifth Amendment means exactly what it says: 'private property (shall not) be taken for public use, without just compensation.' That means all takings, regardless of their length, purpose or manner of implementation.

"If federal, state and local governments can freely restrict land use without paying compensation, so long as the regulatory restriction is 'temporary,' landowners, especially farmers and ranchers, can expect to see a lot more use of planning delays, rolling moratoria and 'temporary' regulations impairing (the economically viable) use of their lands."

The Tahoe-Sierra case likely will be argued during the first few months of the Supreme Court's 2001-2002 term, with a decision expected early next year.