104. 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 no compensation was due as Hearts was never granted a right that could be enforced.
a. True
b. False
105. In Responsible Economic Development v. S.C. Dept. of Health & Enviro. Control, where an environmental
group contested a permit for Wal–Mart to handle parking lot storm water runoff, the court held that the runoff
would damage nearby wetlands, so the state would have to reconsider the permit it had issued.
a. True
b. False
106. 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 the state of Texas would have to pay the value of the land as wetlands mitigation property
when it bought it for use as a reservoir.
a. True
b. False