In Hearts Bluff Game Ranch v. U.S., Hearts purchased a large piece of land that the Army Corps said could be used as mitigation property for wetlands purposes. Later, the state of Texas announced it was building a water reservoir that would put Hearts under water, so it could no longer be used for wetlands mitigation. Hearts sued for uncompensated taking as the property was more valuable for mitigation than under a reservoir. The appeals court held that:
A) Texas would have to compensate Hearts for the value of the land as wetlands mitigation property, not as part of a reservoir
B) the Army Corps would have to compensate Hearts for the difference in the value of the land for wetlands mitigation versus as part of reservoir property
C) the EPA would have to compensate Hearts for the difference in the value of the land for wetlands mitigation versus as part of reservoir property
D) the wetlands mitigation permit process was arbitrary and capricious, so nothing Hearts was told by the Army Corp mattered and it had no rights to enforce
E) none of the other choices
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q379: Citizen suits against polluters are blocked if:
A)
Q380: Which of the following is a nonpoint
Q381: Federal law that deals with pesticide registration
Q382: Biotechnology products are subject to regulation under:
A)
Q383: In Loveladies Harbor v. U.S., regarding an
Q385: The practice of buying or restoring other
Q386: In Loveladies Harbor v. U.S., regarding an
Q387: Wetlands mitigation banking is:
A) the practice of
Q388: The practice of buying or restoring other
Q389: Permits to dredge wetlands often include:
A) a
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents