The Supreme Court of Florida Thursday ruled in favor of the position advocated by Audubon of Florida that continues to support state agencies’ ability to negotiate terms of development permits to ensure they protect the environment.

Coy A. Koontz applied for a permit with the St. Johns Water Management District (District) to develop 3.7 acres of his property that was comprised mostly of wetlands. The District offered to grant the permit to Mr. Koontz only if he complied with certain conditions to conserve property and mitigate the loss of wetlands by improving other wetlands off site.

Mr. Koontz refused to comply with the District’s conditions and his permit was not granted.  Subsequently, he sued the District, claiming the District had “taken” his property during the time the negotiations continued without a resolution. The Supreme Court reversed a previous decision that ordered the District to pay Mr. Koontz over $300,000.

Audubon filed a brief supporting the District and requiring that the fine be reversed- this reversal was unanimously supported by the Supreme Court Justices (although they reached the same conclusion for a number of different reasons.)  Audubon’s support for the District’s case stemmed from recognizing the importance of allowing water management districts and other state agencies to negotiate terms before issuing a permit without fear that they could face financial repercussions if an agreement is not reached quickly enough.

Audubon applauds the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that gives agencies greater power to require specific protections when wetlands are developed, as they did with Mr. Koontz.  This decision will prevent the agencies from being pressured into issuing permits hastily that could harm Florida’s wetlands and environment.

Audubon’s intervention in this case was facilitated by the late Thom Rumberger, and the firm of Rumberger Kirk and Caldwell, who have done much very important legal work for Audubon. Tallahassee attorney Anna Upton also was instrumental in the preparation of Audubon’s brief before the Supreme Court.