Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp.
371 So. 2d 663, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4668 (1979)
Rule of Law:
In Florida, a landowner has a right to the reasonable use (usufruct) of percolating groundwater beneath their property, not absolute ownership of the water itself. This right does not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest requiring compensation via inverse condemnation, unless governmental action causes a direct physical invasion or renders the land itself useless for its beneficial purpose, especially if the landowner has not perfected an existing use through an administrative permit.
Facts:
- Jupiter Inlet Corporation owned property near The Village of Tequesta where it planned to construct a 120-unit condominium project.
- The Village of Tequesta operated a well field about 1200 feet from Jupiter's property, pumping over a million gallons of water daily from the shallow-water aquifer to supply its residents.
- The significant amount of water withdrawn by Tequesta caused saltwater intrusion, endangering the fresh-water supply in the shallow-water aquifer.
- Jupiter was prevented from drilling wells to withdraw water from the shallow-water aquifer due to its endangered condition and Tequesta's excessive withdrawals.
- Tequesta would not supply water to Jupiter's proposed condominium project.
- The only way Jupiter could obtain water for its property was to drill a well to the much deeper Floridan aquifer, which involved substantially greater cost.
Procedural Posture:
- Jupiter Inlet Corporation (plaintiff) instituted an action for inverse condemnation and injunction against The Village of Tequesta (defendant) in a trial court.
- The trial judge granted a summary judgment in favor of Tequesta.
- Jupiter appealed the trial court's decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public interest to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a municipality be held responsible through inverse condemnation for a taking, from private ownership for public purposes, of underground shallow aquifer water, to the extent that a landowner who has not perfected an existing use of that water is deprived of its beneficial use?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Adkins
No, a municipality cannot be held responsible for a taking through inverse condemnation under these circumstances. The court clarified that Florida landowners do not have absolute ownership of the corpus (the physical body) of percolating groundwater beneath their land, but rather a right to its 'usufruct,' meaning the right to its reasonable use. This right to use is not considered 'private property' requiring compensation under Article X, section 6 of the Florida Constitution unless the governmental action causes direct physical damage to the land itself, rendering it useless for its intended purpose. The court distinguished between a compensable 'taking' and non-compensable 'consequential damage.' Jupiter's situation, where it faced increased costs to drill to a deeper aquifer, was deemed consequential damage, not a physical invasion or destruction of the land's beneficial use. The court noted that in cases like Kendry et al. v. State Road Department (flooding rendering land useless) or White v. Pinellas County (physical invasion by cutting trees), compensation was due because there was a direct physical impact or rendering the land unusable. Here, no such physical invasion occurred, and Jupiter's land could still be developed for its highest and best use. Furthermore, the court emphasized that Jupiter had not 'perfected' or 'exercised' its right to use the shallow-water aquifer. Under the Florida Water Resources Act (Chapter 373, Fla. Stat. (1972)), which replaced prior ad hoc judicial determinations, all waters are subject to regulation, and a permit is required for consumptive use, which Jupiter, as a developer of a 120-unit condominium, did not possess. The Act provided a transition period for common-law water rights to convert to permit rights, but it made no provision for unexercised common-law rights. Therefore, without a permit, Jupiter had no existing legal interest in the water to support an inverse condemnation claim. The court explicitly overruled dicta in Valls v. Arnold Industries, Inc. et al. that suggested water beneath the surface is a private property right that cannot be divested without due process and just compensation, reaffirming that the right is to the usufruct, not absolute ownership.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the nature of water rights in Florida, firmly establishing that landowners hold a right to use percolating groundwater, not absolute ownership of the water itself. It underscores the distinction between compensable 'takings' and non-compensable 'consequential damages' in inverse condemnation claims, particularly where no direct physical invasion or destruction of the land's beneficial use occurs. The ruling also highlights the broad regulatory authority of the Florida Water Resources Act, making it clear that unexercised common-law water rights are subordinate to the statutory permitting scheme and do not automatically warrant inverse condemnation claims without a perfected permit.
