Padgett v. Central & Southern Fla. Flood Con. Dist.
178 So. 2d 900 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the state conveys reclaimed land via deeds and statutes that expressly reserve the right to construct works for drainage or reclamation, the state's subsequent construction of such a work (like a levee) on intervening state-owned land is not a compensable taking of the grantee's riparian rights.
Facts:
- The predecessors of R.E. Padgett, Sr., et al. (Padgetts) acquired land adjacent to Lake Okeechobee in 1935 from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund.
- This land had been reclaimed from the lake through artificial drainage, and the deeds described the property boundary as extending to the lake's '17' contour line,' its regulated high-water mark at the time.
- The 1935 deeds, and the statute under which they were issued (Chapter 7861, Laws of Florida), expressly reserved to the state the right to enter the land to construct dikes and other works for drainage or reclamation.
- The statute also reserved the state's right to regulate the lake's water level without liability for damages from raising or lowering the water.
- The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (District) began constructing a levee on land located between the Padgetts' property and the current waters of Lake Okeechobee.
- The land on which the levee was built was formerly part of the lakebed that became exposed after the 1935 conveyance, due to further artificial lowering of the lake's water level by the state.
- The levee obstructed the Padgetts' view of and access to Lake Okeechobee from their property.
Procedural Posture:
- The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District filed suit against R.E. Padgett, Sr., et al. in a Florida trial court (chancery), seeking a declaratory decree regarding its right to build a levee.
- The Padgetts filed an answer joining the request for a decree and prayed for compensation for a taking of their property rights.
- The trial court, upon admittedly uncontroverted facts, entered a summary final decree in favor of the Flood Control District.
- The Padgetts (appellants) appealed the trial court's final decree to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the construction of a levee by a state flood control district on reclaimed state-owned land between a landowner's property and a navigable lake constitute a compensable taking of the landowner's riparian rights, when the original deeds and authorizing statutes reserved the state's right to construct such works for drainage and reclamation?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Judge
No. The construction of the levee does not constitute a compensable taking of the Padgetts' riparian rights because any such rights were subject to the state's reserved powers. The court reasoned that whatever riparian rights the Padgetts possessed were created by the 1935 deeds and the authorizing statutes. These founding documents expressly reserved the state's right to construct works for drainage and reclamation, and the levee is such a work. The Padgetts cannot claim the benefits of the land grant while rejecting the limitations and reservations it contained. Furthermore, the court offered an alternative basis for its holding: the state also reserved the right to lower the lake's water level. By doing so, the state exposed new, state-owned land between the Padgetts' property and the water, which effectively severed their land's contact with the lake and extinguished their status as riparian owners.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that riparian rights granted by the state can be expressly limited by reservations in the conveying instrument and enabling statutes. It confirms that the state can exercise these reserved rights, such as building flood control structures, without incurring liability for a taking, even if it impairs a landowner's access to water. The case also distinguishes between land uncovered by natural reliction (which would belong to the riparian owner) and land exposed by artificial, state-sponsored drainage (which remains state property). This ruling provides a strong defense for government agencies undertaking public works on formerly submerged lands where such rights were reserved in the original land grants.
