Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )

The Attorney General of Texas
hne 21, 1985
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
Suprm Cewl BulldIng Bomrable CarlosVaLdcz OpinionNo. JM-328
P. 0. Box 12542 Nueces County Attorwy
Austin. TX. rnlll- 2545 Courthowe, Room 2015 Be: Wtether regulationsenacted
512/47S?so1
Corpw Chrioti, Tasks 78401 pursuant to article 1581e-1.
Telex Olw87C1287
T4l~copler 512/47502(16 V.T.C.S.. and 6WtiOUS 16.311,
et seq.. of the Tcus Water Code
couetitute e taking of land
714 Jack6m. Suit. 700
Dd*r. TX. 7520245m
2W742-8044
Deer Hr. Valder:
The legislatureenacted article 1581e-1. V.T.C.S., because it
4824 Albwu Ave.. SUIW 16a recopslzed
El Paso. TX. 7WOH792
OlW the permbal bardahips end economic distress
cawd by flood disasters eiace~it haa become
1001Texas. suite 700 uneconomiml for the private insurance industry
NolJston, TX. 77m2-3111 alone to make flood Insuranceavailableto those
71- in need o:!euch protectionon reanonableterma and
conditiom,.,
50s Broadway, suite 312
Lubbock. TX. 794062472
Sec. 1. The purpcm of article 1581~1 wan to enable Gulf Coast
8o8n47-522.3 cottlttlc~ to participateIn the National Flood InsuranceAct of 1968,
42, U.S.C. ,14001.- et ma... Id.: mee alw Tex. Water Code 116.311.et
General Opin~.~983); MU-171 (1980);E-1Oz
4209 N. Tmth. Suit. B
McAllm. TX. 78501.162s
federal lct make& flood insurance avaflable throueh
512lea2.4547 i&d&&d --effortI, of ,~,
t< ~.federal,..govekt ind -the prlvaie
innrr-•.induIItV :.-but only vhca ~stath and local gOV~l%WtltEcomply
with certaimfedera:, standards. 42 U.S.C.*114022, 4012(c) (1982); see
2m Malt! Plru, suite 400 Texas Laudowners IUghtst Ase’n v. Earris, 453 1; Supp. ~1025, 1027-28
San Antonlo. TX. 782052727
5t~lsl
?DiD.C:1978), m!,. 598 P.2d 3rl (D.C. Cir. 1979). cert. denied,444
U.S. 927.. Addftimmllv: eeveral other tvues of federal financial
awi6teuce, including % and PgA insured*~*mrtgages, m ctkmunity
A” Equal OPPWtunltYf development block lpattts, and disaster resistance. may not be
Affl”“.th~ Actlon EmployW available In flood hazard ereas 'of non-complyingc-cities. 42
U.S.C. i4012a; we 42 U.S.C. )4003(a)(4); oee &o T~AE Landowners
Rlghts.Aes’n o. ~~~, E,. at 1028.
Pureuent to tha Ilationel
Flood IneureeceAct of 1968. ee amended
by the Flood Dieeetw ProtectionAct of 1973. 42 U.S.C. 14001 et seq.,
the Pederel Rmergea~cyManagement Agency holds authority to adopt
regulationswhich ctmdition a loulity'e perticipatlonin the Nationel
Flood InsurancePro$;ram.-See 42 U.S.C. 14012(c); 44 C.F.R. 160.1(a).
RonorsbleCarlo6Vsldea - Page!2 (JM-328)
The regulationabout which y,u inquireprovides that a participating
communityshall,smong other thinga,
[plrohibitencroschs~snts, Includingfill, new con-
stmction. aubstsntLs1 improvemants. and other
developnwntwithin t'headoptedregulatoryfloodvay
that would result jlrsny increase in flood levels
within the communityduring the occurrenceof the
beae flood dischsrge. (Emphsaiaadded).
44 C.P.R. l60.3(d)(3).
Your offfce contend6thirtthe wording of this provisionmust be
taken as s blsnket prohibitionof any developmentin flood hazard
areas. Accordingly,you aak whether the passage and enforcementby
the county~oflsnd use regulotionawith this prohibition,pursuantto
srtlcle 1581c1. V.T.C.S..owi~aections16.311 through 16.319 of the
Texas Water Code. constitutes taking of lsnd without compensationin
violationof the Fifth and FourteenthAmwdmsnts of the United States
Constitution. You also aak whether applicationof this flood hsrsrd
regulationto only portionsof the total ntier of flood hazard sreea
violate6 the Equsl ProtectionClause of the Fourteenthtindxnent. A
number of prior opinionsof ,&is office considered, various aspects of
counties' participationIn t'w Nations1Flood InsuranceProgrsm. See
Attomay General Opinion6 JW-123 (1983); MU-171 (1980); H-1102
E-1024, E-1011. E-978 (1977). Several of these opinions deslt
specificallywith article l!ieile-1.but none addressed the constitu-
tionsl issua raised by your request. -See Attorney General Opinions
a-123; MU-171;R-1024.
AA a prelimlnsrymsttor. It la not entirely clear that the
federsl regulationia queatfon requires the county to prohibit “all"
developamt in.federsllydec;f,gnsted floodwaya. The Suprcmc Court of
North Xarolins recently conrlideredthe vslidity of a local land use
ordinsncefor flood,luaardares6 which wea enected in order to comply
with the Rations1 Flood Inno!snceProgrsm. See ReaponaibleCitizen6
in Oppositionto the Flood Qain Ordinancevxity of Asheville,302
S.E.Zd 204 (N.C. 1983). Tha:ordinance,in lsngusge slooat identical
to that in isauc here, prahLbited sll fill, new conatmction. snd
aubatsntislirprov-ts except those that "ahsll not result in 9
incresac of the regulstoryf:lood[level]during occurrenceof the base
flood discharge." Id. et 210. n. 4 (emphasis edded). The court
construedthis,lsnpr- to authorize nav conatmction or aubataatisl
imprwamwta in e menner th;atprevent8 or ~nimiaea any potentlal
iacresse in flood d.msge. 302 S.E.2d at 210. You do not indicate
thst s perticulerlendowner'haspresented evidence from an engineer
thst no developmentat all ia physically poaalble vhich vi11 not
result in soy incraese in !Floodlevels. You indicate that prior
federalreatricthns snd pra:ticegenerallypermittednew construction
if the structurewsa llsvstad on pilings. We also note that the
federsl regulationsprovide for the adoptionof limitedvariancesand
p. 1501
EonorsbleCsrloaValder - Page 3 (JM-328)
See 44 C.F.R. 160.6. Uoreover,
exceptionsin extreme clrcum~~tsncea.
evsn if new constmctlon is not feasible.the provisionin question
does not necessarilypr0hibi.tall uses of property in flood hazard
arses. See generallyTurner v. CounTof Del Norte. 24 Cal. App. 3d
311, 101 Cal. Rptr. 93mj (upheldlimit on use under flood plsin
ordlnsnceto recreationsnd sgriculture).
Under the Fifth and FourteenthAmendmentsof the United Ststes
Constitution. privatepropertymsy not be "t&en" in the uercise of s
governmsnt'seminent domain pavers without "just compensation.” You
do not oak about the Texsa Conatltution.Set Tex. Coast. srt. I. 117;
City of College Ststion v. Turtle Rock Corporation.680 S.W.Zd 802
(Tax. 1984);City of Austin v. Tesgue.570 S.W.Zd 389 (Tex. 1978). We
note. hovever.that the Texas spproschis in line with cases resolving
"taking"claim6under the Federsl Constitution. See City of Austin v.
Tesgw, 570 S.W.Zd at 393 (balancingof public ati~rivate intareata).
Under certain circumatancea.,property uy be eppropristedby govem-
ment action without sny corpenastionas an exercise of the stste’s
police paver - the power to protect the public health. safety, snd
welfare.
u.s. 621 ,S;;o;n Diego Go6 b,Electric Co. v. C::',~sS~l~~;;~
Agin v. City of Tlburon. 447 U.S. 255 (1980)
Central TrsnaportationCo. *;. NW York City, . . ;
Texss LandownersRights Asa'~~v. Esrria. *. The factors uauslly
consideredin determiningwhe:ther or not a takinghsa occurredinclude
whether there hss been a #yalcal invasion or sppropristion,the
degree of diminutionIn the value of the clsiment'alsnd, the distinc-
tion between forcingbaneflt~; snd preventinghsrma, snd a balersing of
public benefits againstprivjxe losses. Aa the United States Supreme
Court stated in Agina v. C:lJ:p of Tiburon. m. %o precise rule
determinesvhsn propertyhe6 b,eentoken . . . the questionnece66arily
requires a weighing of prfirsteend public interests." Thus. vh‘t
constitutesa "taking" rfth regard to the actusl applicationof a
local flood ordinsncedepend!, upon the fscts in each particularcase.
Accordingly,we con only set forth whst the general state of the lsw
is in the arae.
It has slresdy been estsblished in a- jurisdictionsthat
similarloco1 land use regulmtions eaaociatedwith the Notions1Flood
Insurance Progrsn ore a va1j.dexarcise of the police power and that.
thereforethey do not. on their face, effect s “taking.” See Texas
Landowners Rights Aaa’n v. 'llsrris, m ResponsibleCitizens in
Opposftionto the Flood Pl& Ordinsncev. City of Asheville,m
Flood hszsrd zone regulstion;serve a vitsl purpose in protectingthe
people who occupy the regul.a,ted land and in protectingneighboring
lsndovnersfrom increasedflood dsmsge and in protectingthe general
public. See Turnpike Reslt:rCo. v. Tow of Dedham. 284 N.E.2d 891
(Ness. 19m cert. denied, 609 U.S. 1108 (1973). For these ressona,
they have been upheld se vr.lidexercises of the police paver. See
Texhs Landowners-Rights Ass’n. v. Hsrrls, supra; ResponsibleCitia~
in Opposition to the Flood-Plsin Ordinance v. City of Aahsville.
s. Moreover,SE shown agove. the provision in questiondoes not
p. 1502
RonorablcCarlosValdez - Page 4 (JM-328)
prohibitall uses of propertywithin a flood risk area. Clearly some
intensiveu*es, such as extensiveuev construction.mey be ruled out
as * practicalmatter. As lnilicated,however.decisionsof the United
States Supreme Court establishthat uses of land which are Injurious
to the public may be prohib:tted entirely without compensation. In
borderlinec.ssesthe courts hsve found the existenceof authorization
for some remaininguses to te a significantfactor in the "taking"
ISSUL. See, e.g., Aglus v. CJ.tyof Tiburon.supra; Turner v. CouutY
of Del Norte, supra. The ultimatequestionIs whether a landowneris
denied all economicallyviab'leuse of his land, Agins, 447 U.S. at
260, not whetherhe mst be a1,l.eto show au immediateprofit.
The fact that the authorizeduses are not the "highestand best"
uses or that the cost of complying with flood control land-use
regulationslay be financially"prohibitive"is not controll!
r-1051. 1066 (:5thCir.-i
i-F.2d 1184 (Ct. 198i);-;
Decisionsof the United States SF
upheld prohibitions of similar injurious uses and activities, to
preventharm to the public, even when the financialimpact on the land
in question is substantial. See, e.g., Agins v. City of Tiburon,
w For example,the Supreme Court in the Penn Central cnse noted
that It previously upheld, without requiring compensation,a 75
percent diminutionin value Ln Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S.
365 (1926).snd uuheld an 87% nercentdiminutionIn value In Radscheck
v. Sebsst&n. 236 U.S. 394 (1;315).438 U.S. at 131; see als;ne
LandownersRights Aesn’n v. Barris. 453 F. Supp. at 1032.
cases the landownerswhose jamis restrictedalso receive certain
reciprocalbenefitswhich incr,case the value of their property. Such
benefitsmay arise both from the fact that restrictions applicableto
their neighborsprotect the liwdovnersthemselvesfrom increasedflood
hazards and from the ivailabllityto the landownerof flood insurance
end federally-related financing. See ResponsibleCitizens in Opposi-
tion to the Flood Plain OrdinanceCity
V. of Asheville.302 S.R.2d st
213. That the costs of dev&pment necessary to comply with flood
hazard restrictionsare "prdn:Lbitive" or that. the lover value of a
less intensiveuse of land is not immediatelyprofitablepay merely
indicatethat .sparticularlctndowner has paid too much for land in a
flood hazard area. The Fifth and FourteenthAmendmentsdo not require
that the government guarantcw that a landowner be favored to the
detrimentof the public merely becausehe has paid a speculativeprice
for land. As the Supreme Cou,rtstated in Penn CentrslTransportation
Co. v. New York City:
[T]he submissionthw [landowners]may establisha
'taking’ simply by shoving that they have been
p. 1503
.
EonornbleCnrlosValder - Pago 5 (Jh-328)
denied the nbility to exploit n property interest
that they heretofolre had believed vns availsble
for developmet is quite simplyuntenable.
438 U.S. at 130; see also --
And:nm v. Allard,444 U.S. 51. 65-66 (1979).
~For these reasons,ve concludethat adoptionby the county of the
federnlstandardfor flood haxerd laud-useregulationin question.see
44 C.P.R. 960.3(d)(3) (quoted previously),would not on its face
effect n taking. The validity of the appllcatiouof a flood plain
ordinance to a particular piece of..propertydepends upou fnctual
determinations.Numerous courts in other stntes have upheld similar
flood zone prohibitions..8ee Turner vr County of Del Norte, 24 Cal.
App. 3d 311. 101 Cal. 'Rptr.93 (1972):Pope v. City of Atlant :“, 249
S.E.Zd 16 (Ga. 1978). cert. denied. 1C40 U.S. 936 (1979);
Plumbing6 Bent1ng ~I&.~v.za Nnturai ReaourccrCouncil.276 N%% . .
377 (Iown 1979); I N.E.2d 891
(l4aml..1972). qLe~L~;j;.2;~;f m D=dham-Subnru
284 of New
England v. Board of Apue . . (Haas. App. Ct. 1979);
Usdin v.,State Departmentof EnvlronmentrlPIyeaction. 414 A.2d 280
,(N.J;8uner. Ct. LAW Div. 19fa). aff'd. 430 A.2d 94!9 (N.J. Super. Ct.
,&p. Old. 1981); Ma le Leaf Iuvex~. Inc. v. State Departmentof
Ecology, 565 P.Zdwi. 1977) 8ce also Graham v.~Bstuary
Properties.Inc.. 399 80. 2d 1374 (Fl;. i-t. denied,454 U.S.
1083 (1981).
You also indicqte thnt tireproposed regulation would apply only
to flood hasard areas on the FiuecesBiver which are designatedby the
Federal Bmergency PlarugementAgency and that the Agency plans to
designate only a portion of IBS total mumher of flood hazard atess nt
a the. Becuuse this may rewlt in differingtreatment of landoeners
who nre similarly. situated.you ask whether such partial regulation
violatesthe Equal Protection(Clause of the FourteenthAmendment.
We note *s a prefatorywetter that Gulf Coast countiesare not
limitedin their enactmentand enforcementof flood hsrard regulations
to nrens which have been designeted as flood hasnrd areas by the
Federal RmergencyDnnagementAgency. Countieshold only those pouers
nnd duties that nre specificnllyor by necessaryimplicationconferred
on them. Canales v. Lau8n:Lin.214 S.W.Zd 451 (Ten. 1948). As
initiallyenacted. the Flood-Controland InsuranceAct granted only
limitedpowers to counties. See Ten. Water Code S16.311et seq. This
office previously concludei~>hat this act nuthoriree political
subdivisionsto enact land use regulstionswhich have as their purpose
and effect eomplinncewith the requir-ts of the National Flood
Iosurnnce Program, but that, such regulations have no application
outside of federally designsted flood hasnrd areas. See Attorney
General OpinionsWI-171 (1983'); R-978 (1977). NeverthelG. srticle
1581e-1 grnnts ldditionsl flood damage control powers to counties
bordering the Gulf of Mexicc~ or ita tidewater limits. These pavers
sre not restrictedto or conditionedon the actions of any federnl
p. 1504
EonorableCarlosValdez - Page 6 (JM-328)
ageucy in dcsiguatingnn aren ,asn flood hasard. See Attorney General
OpinionsHW-171 (1980);N-1024 (1977). As ve inKsted in Attorney
General Opinion JM-123 (1983). article 1581e-1 must be construedin
conformitywith its purpose of enabling certain counties to quelify
for pnrtlcipatiouin the National Flood Insurance Program. Con-
sequently,Attorney CaneralOpinion JM-I23 concludedthat a particular
county lackad powers broad enough to deny utility sewice to
individualsand autities vhlch were not in compllaucavlth county
flood regulations. Navcrth~aless.federal regulations encourage
comprehensiveflood mwagemrut by local c-nitleo sad expressly
allow more stringentregulat:tcms than we federallyrequired. See 44
C.F.X. 1160.1,60.3(b). Thw,, Gulf Coast countiesare not limi?Z in
their article 1581c-1flood z,cgulatiou pavers to areas which have been
designatedas flood hasard as’eae by the fedaralgovernmant. They are,
howwer. limlted to enactin only land use regulationsand only in
flood-proneareas. -See Attonmy GaneralOpinionE-1024 (1977).
If tha county decides, houever, that it is feasibleto enact nnd
anforce flood regulationsonly in the areas which have been federally
designatedas flood haanrd areas, such action vould not result in a
danialof equal protectionea a matter of law. It is well established
that governmanta entitianamp implamenttheir programs a step at n
time., See City of NW Orleans v. Uukas, 427 U.S. 297 (1976);
Kataenba~v. Xorgan. 384 U2. ace also Beckandorffv.
Rarris-CalvcstonCoastal Subl3:Ldence
District,558 S.W.2d 75, 81 (Tax.
Civ. App. - Houston [14th D&t.] 1977). aff'd 563 S.W.Zd 239 (Tex.
1978). So long as the Gulf Coast county ha~ational reason for not
enactingand enforcingflood regulationsin all flood hazard areas at
one tkc. no aqua1 protectionclaim anista ls a matter of lnv. The
validity of the actual applicationof this langunge to a parficular
piece of propertydepandsupon the fscts involvedin each cnse.
1. This is not to sn:rthat. in a particularcase. a landowner
could not show that a county's flood plain boundary draving Is dis-
cridnetory as applied. See enerall Visa v. State, 92 Cal. App. 3d
15. 154 Cal. Rptr. 580 v9'79
-s+ Nor do ve nddress the question of
whether a partlculnr landouner may have other claims against the
enforcementof a flood p1c:d.n rcgulstion. See Hcrnandcz v. City of
Lnfaycttc.649 F.2d 336 (5~11Cir. 1981). (cnnteral cstoppel)e
denied. 102 s.ct. 1251 (19A2); Town of Large v. Imperial Aomes
Corporatfon.309 So.2d 571 (Pin. 1975) (equitablecstoppel).
p. 1505
.
NonornbleCarloaValder - Page 7 (JR-3281
Language in loaLL land-use regulationsvhich
tracks the criter:ia of the Natioual Flood
InsuranceProgram set forth in 44 C.F.R. section
60.3(d)(3),does not 00 its face effect a "taking"
in violation of the Fifth and FourteauthAmeud-
meets of the United States Constitution. The
countymay adopt flood haaard regulationsoue step
at n the, such that they apply 0019 In federally
designatedflood hazard areas, vithout coustitu-
tlag a violationof the Bqual ProtectionClause of
the FourteeuthAmeuhseutas a matter of lav. The
validity of the ectual application of this
languageto a partiwlar piece of propertydepends
upou the facts invo:tved
in each use.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney Geueralof Texas
TonGxEEN
First AssistantAttorney Gaaeml
DAVID X. BICEARDS
ExecutiveAaaiatant Attorney General
ROBERT GRAT
SpecialAssistant Attorney General
RICR GILPIN
Chairman.OpinionComittae
Preparedby JeuuiferRiggs
AssistantAttorney General
APPROVEI:
OPINION CGXRITlEE
Rick Gilpin.Chairman
Jon Bible
Tony Guillory
Jim noellinger
JenniferRiggs
Nancy Sutton
Snrah Uoelk
p. 1506