For many, banning water hauling is banning development
There’s more than one way to skin a cat (or so I’ve heard). Well, there’s also more than one way for the government to prevent development on private property. Damien Schiff and I recently published an OpEd in the Country Journal for Acton and Agua Dulce about a new state law that has a big impact on property rights for many rural landowners.
Passing a law that prohibits all development at particular locations is within a state’s police power. However, when government takes away all economically beneficial use of a property, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires government to pay just compensation to the owner. Because paying for property can get expensive, government often tries to regulate away substantial property rights, but (under some questionable Supreme Court precedent) leave enough rights that the compensation requirement isn’t triggered.
Of course, as governments make more and more restrictions on the ability to use property, there is often a point where the outcome is the same: the owner cannot make an economically beneficial use of their property. A new state law, SB 1263, is putting many rural landowners in just such a position.
Under SB 1263, which was signed into law last September by Governor Brown, local government may not permit residential development that will rely on the use of hauled water. But for many landowners, municipal hookups or groundwater wells are simply not an option. The ban on water hauling permanently ends their dreams of building a home in the rural communities they love. Those dreams were perfectly reasonable. After all, many existing homes have already been built using hauled water, some directly adjacent to properties that are now unable to be developed.
This fact also renders the state’s justifications for SB 1263 unpersuasive. If hauled water represents a public health risk, it’s hard to imagine why the state would continue to allow so many existing homes to rely on it for their water needs. The state suggests that there are risks of contamination, but these risks exist in every available water source, and are easily addressed through sanitary practices or filtration units. Further, hauled water providers are already subject to strict licensing requirements under Article 12 of California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, which ensures that hauled water is a safe and effective water source. It seems much more likely that the state wanted to limit residential expansion into areas where municipal sources are not available.
It’s hard to definitively prove whether the ban on hauled water was motivated by anti-development sentiments, but for many, the end result is no less a total taking of all economically beneficial use. For these landowners, Damien and I believe that SB 1263 may have unconstitutionally taken private property without paying just compensation, and we think that landowners in areas such as Acton and Agua Dulce may want to look to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to vindicate their property rights.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.