Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Facts

Lake Tahoe is known for the exceptional clarity of its water. As land development in the Lake Tahoe Basin grew, runoff carried nutrients into the lake, and its clarity declined. California and Nevada adopted a compact, which Congress approved, that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to coordinate and regulate development in the Basin and conserve its natural resources. A 1980 amendment to the compact directed TRPA to set environmental threshold carrying capacities and then adopt a regional plan to achieve them. TRPA concluded it could not meet the compact's deadlines. It enacted Ordinance 81–5, effective August 24, 1981, and later Resolution 83–21, which suspended all project reviews and approvals. That resolution stayed in effect until a new regional plan was adopted on April 26, 1984. Together, the two moratoria prohibited virtually all development on a substantial part of the land under TRPA's jurisdiction for 32 months. The petitioners were the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, which represents about 2,000 owners of land in the Basin, and a class of some 400 owners of vacant lots on sensitive lands. They bought those lots before the 1980 compact, mainly to build a home later. The District Court found that TRPA acted diligently and in good faith, and that further development on lands like theirs would significantly damage the lake.

Issues

1. Does a moratorium on development imposed while an agency devises a comprehensive land-use plan amount to a per se taking that requires compensation under the Takings Clause?
2. Can landowners bring the categorical rule of Lucas into play by treating the 32-month period of the moratoria as a separate temporal slice of their property that was taken in its entirety?

Holding

On petitioners' facial challenge, the 32-month moratoria TRPA imposed while it devised a regional plan were not per se takings. The Court rejected a categorical rule requiring compensation for every temporary deprivation of all use. Such claims are best analyzed under Penn Central, with duration as one important factor.