Takings

In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta’s mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.

A Butte county landowner who claimed that flood control measures undertaken and approved by Butte County amounted to inverse condemnation had all of his arguments rejected by the Third District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the strict liability standard that applies in most inverse condemnation cases does not apply in the flood control context. Instead, the court determined a rule of reasonableness applied to the claims, and the landowner did not prove that the county acted unreasonably.

In a decision with enormous potential ramifications for environmental regulation, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Bureau of Reclamation mandate requiring a Ventura County water district ensure adequate river flow for an endangered fish species was a physical appropriation of the water. The court ruled that the Casitas Municipal Water District’s claims should be considered under the physical takings doctrine, not under the much narrower regulatory takings standard.

A property owner’s challenge of a Sierra Madre City Council resolution directing a committee to consider stricter regulation of hillside development has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal.

The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld a trial court judge who had ruled that the situation was not “ripe” for judicial review. Although the resolution might lead to less potential development, the resolution itself had no binding implications for the property owner’s land, the Second District determined.