Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State

In Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012), the plaintiff landowners purchased wetlands on a site that the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) had identified as a potential water reservoir location. Id. at 473. The plaintiff then sought a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for a mitigation banking permit. Id. The Corps denied the permit because of the TWDB designation. Id. The plaintiff then sued the State and the Corps of Engineers for "interfering with its asserted right to commercially develop the land as a mitigation bank." Id. In evaluating whether the plaintiff had shown that the State or Corps interfered with its reasonable investment expectations, the supreme court discussed the current and known prior uses of the land: Because Hearts Bluff's property is bottomland, its uses are more limited than other lands. There are other plausible uses of its land, e.g., the existing uses for hunting and fishing, although Hearts Bluff noted that the other possible uses would likely not justify the price that it paid for the land. Hearts Bluff argues that the mitigation banking program is a profitable venture and its loss of the expectation of obtaining a valuable mitigation bank at the site is actionable. But this seems to be a risk common to land developers. See Sheffield, 140 S.W.3d at 677. . . . . . . . . Concerning its investment expectations, Hearts Bluff alleges that the State has caused it substantial damage since it can no longer use its property as a mitigation bank. . . . The record does not clearly indicate all the uses of the parcel prior to Hearts Bluff's purchase. However, there is no evidence before us indicating that the State's actions in this case, whether it be communicating with the Corps or designating Marvin Nichols as a unique site, have affected any previously existing uses of the property. Hearts Bluff still has every use of the land available to it other than participation at this time in a federal mitigation banking program. (Heart's Bluff Game Ranch, 381 S.W.3d at 490--91.) The supreme court in Hearts Bluff Game Ranch explained that ""the existing and permitted uses of the property constitute the 'primary expectation' of the landowner that is affected by regulation." 381 S.W.3d at 491.