**JIM MATTOX**  **Attorney** General

**Suprm Cewl**  BulldIng P. 0. Box 12542 Austin. TX. rnlll- 2545 512/47S?so1 Telex Olw87C1287 T4l~copler 512/47502(16

714 Jack6m. Suit. 700 Dd*r. TX. 7520245m 2W742-8044

4824 Albwu Ave.. SUIW 16a El Paso. TX. 7WOH792 OlW

**1001** Texas. suite 700 NolJston, TX. 77m2-3111 71-

50s Broadway, suite 312 Lubbock. TX. 794062472 8o8n47-522.3

4209 N. Tmth. Suit. B McAllm. TX. 78501.162s 512lea2.4547

2m Malt! Plru, suite 400 San Antonlo. TX. 782052727 5t~lsl

A” Equal OPPWtunltYf Affl”“.th~ Actlon EmployW 

# The Attorney General of Texas

hne 21, 1985

Bomrable CarlosVaLdcz Opinion No. JM-328 NuecesCountyAttorwy Courthowe, Room 2015 Be: Wtetherregulations enacted Corpw **Chrioti,** Tasks 78401 pursuant to article 1581e-1. V.T.C.S.. and **6WtiOUS** 16.311, et seq.. of **the** Tcus Water Code **couetitute** e taking of land

Deer Hr. Valder:

The legislatureenacted article 1581e-1.V.T.C.S.,because it recopslzed

Sec. 1. **the** permbal bardahips **end** economic distress

cawd by flood disasters eiace~it haa become uneconomiml for the private insurance industry alone to make flood Insuranceavailableto **those** in need o:!

euch protection

on reanonable

terma and conditiom,.,

The purpcm of article 1581~1 wan to enable Gulf Coast to participate

In the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, cottlttlc~ **42, U.S.C.**  **,14001.- et**  **ma...** Id.: mee alw Tex. Water Code 116.311.et

General Opin~.~983); MU-171 (1980);E-1Oz federal lct make& flood insurance avaflable throueh i&d&&d --effortI, of ,~, t< ~.federal,..govekt ind -the prlvaie **innrr- •**  **.induIItV** :.-but only vhca ~stath and local gOV~l%WtltE comply with certaimfedera:, standards. **42** **U.S.C.*114022,** **4012(c)** (1982); see **Texas Laudowners**  **IUghtst Ase**  **’ n**  **v. Earris,**  **453 1;**  **Supp. ~1025,**  **1027-28** ?DiD.C:1978),m!,. 598 P.2d 3rl (D.C.Cir. 1979).cert.denied,444 U.S. 927.. Addftimmllv: eeveral other tvues of federal financial **awi6teuce,** including % and PgA insured*~*mrtgages, m **ctkmunity** development block lpattts,and disaster resistance. may not be available In flood hazard ereas 'of non-complying c-cities. 42 U.S.C. **i4012a; we**  **42 U.S.C.**  **)4003(a)(4);** oee &o T~AE Landowners **Rlghts.Aes ’**  **n o.**  **~~~, E,.**  **at 1028.** 

Pureuent to tha Ilationel Flood Ineureece

Act of 1968. ee amended by the Flood Dieeetw Protection Act of 1973. 42 U.S.C. 14001 et seq., the Pederel Rmergea~cy Management Agency holds authority to adopt regulations

which **ctmdition** a loulity'e perticipatlon in the Nationel Flood Insurance

Pro$;ram.

See **42 U.S.C.**  **14012(c); 44**  **C.F.R. 160.1(a).** 

**-**Ronorsble Carlo6 Vsldea - Page!

2 (JM-328)

The regulation

about which y,u inquireprovides that a participating community

shall,smong other **thinga,** [plrohibit

encroschs~snts,

Including

fill,new constmction. aubstsntLs1 improvemants.and other developnwnt

within t'he

adoptedregulatory floodvay thatwould result jlr sny **increase** in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the beae flooddischsrge. (Emphsaia added).

**44** C.P.R. l60.3(d)(3).

Your offfce contend6thirt the wording of this provision must be taken as s blsnket prohibition of any developmentin flood hazard
areas. Accordingly, you aak whether the passage and enforcement by the county~oflsnd use regulotiona with this prohibition, pursuantto srtlcle 1581c1. V.T.C.S..owi~aections 16.311 through 16.319 of the Texas Water Code. constitute s taking of lsnd **without** compensation **in** violation

**of** the Fifth and Fourteenth Amwdmsnts of the United States Constitution.You also aak whether application of this flood hsrsrd regulation

to only portions

of the total ntier of floodhazard sreea violate6 the Equsl Protection Clause of the Fourteenth tindxnent. A number of prior opinionsof ,&is office considered, various aspectsof
counties' participation In t'w Nations1Flood Insurance Progrsm. See **Attomay** General Opinion6 JW-123 (1983); MU-171 (1980); H-1102 E-1024, E-1011. E-978 (1977). Several **of** these opinions deslt specifically

with article l!ieile-1. but none addressed **the** constitutionsl issua raised by your request. See AttorneyGeneral Opinions - a-123; MU-171;R-1024.

**AA** a prelimlnsry

msttor. It la not entirely clear that the federslregulation ia queatfonrequiresthe county to prohibit “all" developamt in.federslly dec;f,gnsted

floodwaya. The Suprcmc Court of NorthXarolins recently conrlidered the vslidity of a local land use ordinsncefor flood,luaard ares6which wea enected in order to comply with the Rations1Flood Inno!snce Progrsm. See Reaponaible Citizen6 in Opposition

to the Flood Qain Ordinance vxity of Asheville, 302 S.E.Zd 204 (N.C. 1983). Tha: ordinance,in lsngusgeslooat identical to that in isauc here, prahLbited sll fill, new conatmction. snd aubatsntisl

irprov-ts except those that "ahsll not result in 9
incresac of the regulstory f:lood [level] during occurrence

of the base flood discharge." Id. **et** 210. **n.** 4 (emphasis edded). The **court** construedthis ,lsnpr- to **authorize nav**  conatmction or aubataatisl imprwamwta in e menner th;at prevent8 or ~nimiaea any potentlal
iacresse in flood d.msge. **302** S.E.2d **at** 210. You do not indicate thst s perticulerlendowner 'has presented evidence from an engineer thst no developmentat all ia physicallypoaalble vhich vi11 not result in soy incraese **in** !Flood levels. You indicate **that** prior federalreatricthns snd pra:tice generally

permitted

new construction if the structurewsa llsvstad on pilings. We also note that the federslregulations provide for the adoptionof limited variances

and

p. 1501Eonorsble Csrloa Valder - Page 3 (JM-328)

exceptions

in extreme clrcum~~tsncea. See **44** C.F.R. 160.6. Uoreover,
evsn **if** new constmctlon is not feasible.the provisionin question does not necessarily pr0hibi.t

all uses **of** property in flood hazard
arses. See generally Turnerv. CounTof Del Norte. 24 Cal. **App.** 3d 311, 101 Cal. Rptr. 93mj (upheldlimit on use under flood plsin ordlnsnce

to recreation

snd sgriculture).

Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendmentsof the United Ststes Constitution.

private

property

msy not be "t&en" in the uercise of s governmsnt's

eminent domain paverswithout "just **compensation. ”**  You do not oak about the Texsa Conatltution.Set Tex. Coast. srt. I. 117; City of College Ststionv. Turtle Rock Corporation. 680 S.W.Zd 802 (Tax. 1984);City of Austinv. Tesgue.570 S.W.Zd 389 (Tex. 1978). We note. hovever.that the Texas spproschis in line with cases resolving "taking"

claim6under the FederslConstitution. See City of Austinv. Tesgw, 570 S.W.Zdat 393 (balancing of public ati~rivate **intareata).** Under certain circumatancea. ,property

uy be eppropristed by govemment **action** without sny corpenastion **as an**  exercise of the **stste ’** **s** police paver - the power **to** protect the public health. safety, snd welfare. u.s. 621 ,S;;o;n Diego Go6 b, ElectricCo. v. C::', ~sS~l~~;;~ Agin v. **City of**  Tlburon. 447 U.S. 255 (1980) Central Trsnaportation Co. *;.NW York City,

. . ; Texss Landowners

Rights Asa'~~

v. Esrria. *. The factorsuauslly considered

in determining

whe:ther

or not a takinghsa occurredinclude whether there hss been a #yalcal invasion or sppropristion, the degreeof diminution In the value of the clsiment'a lsnd, the distinction between forcing baneflt~;

snd preventing

hsrma, snd a **balersing** of public benefitsagainstprivjxe losses. Aa the United **States Supreme**  Court stated in Agina v. C:lJ:p of Tiburon.m. %o precise rule determines

vhsn property

he6 b,een

token

. . . the question nece66arily requires a weighing of prfirste end public interests." Thus. vh‘t constitutes

a "taking" rfth regard to the actusl application of a local flood ordinsnce depend!,

upon the fscts in each particular case. Accordingly,

we con only **set** forthwhst the general state **of** the lsw is **in** the arae.

It has slresdy been estsblished in a- jurisdictionsthat similarloco1 land use **regulmtions** eaaociated with the Notions1Flood **Insurance** Progrsn **ore** a va1j.d exarciseof the policepower and that. thereforethey do not. on their face, effect s **“ taking.**  **”** See Texas LandownersRights **Aaa ’**  **n** v. 'llsrris, m ResponsibleCitizens in Opposftionto **the** Flood Pl& Ordinsnce v. City of Asheville, m Flood hszsrd zone regulstion; serve a vitsl purpose in protecting **the** people who **occupy the**  regul.a,ted land and in protecting neighboring lsndovners

from increasedflood dsmsge and in protecting the general public. See TurnpikeReslt:r Co. v. Tow of Dedham. 284 N.E.2d 891 (Ness. 19m cert. denied, **609** U.S. 1108 (1973). For these ressona, they have been upheld se vr.lid exercisesof the police paver. See Texhs Landowners **-Rights Ass**  **’ n.**  v. **Hsrrls,** supra; Responsible Citia~ in Opposition to the Flood-Plsin Ordinance v. City **of** Aahsville.
s. Moreover,SE shown agove. the provision in questiondoes not

p. 1502Ronorablc Carlos Valdez - Page 4 (JM-328)

prohibitall uses of property within a flood risk area. Clearlysome intensive

u*es, such as extensive uev construction.

mey be ruled out as * practical

matter. As lnilicated, however.decisions of the United States SupremeCourt establishthat uses **of** land which are Injurious to the public may be prohib:tted entirelywithout compensation. In borderline

c.sses the courtshsve found the existence of authorization for some remaininguses to te a significant factor in the "taking" **ISSUL.** See, e.g., Aglus v. CJ.ty of Tiburon.supra; Turner v. CouutY of Del Norte, supra. The ultimatequestionIs whether a landowner is denied all economically viab'le use of his land, Agins, 447 U.S. at 260, not whether

he mst be a1,l.e

to show au immediate profit.

The fact that the authorized uses are not the "highestand best"
uses or that the cost of complying with flood control land-use regulations

lay be financially "prohibitive"

is not controll!

r-1051.1066 (:5th

Cir.-i

i-F.2d 1184 (Ct. 198i);-; Decisionsof the United States SF upheld prohibitionsof similar injurious uses and activities,to prevent

harm to the public,even when the financial impacton the land in question is substantial. See, e.g., Agins v. City of Tiburon,
w For example,the SupremeCourt in the Penn Centralcnse noted that It previously upheld, without requiring compensation,a 75 percent diminution in value Ln Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).

snd uuheld an 87% nercentdiminution In value In Radscheck
v. Sebsst&n. 236 U.S. 394 (1;315).438 U.S. at 131; see als;ne Landowners

Rights **Aesn ’**  **n** v. Barris. 453 F. Supp. at 1032. cases the landowners whose jamis restrictedalso **receive** certain reciprocal

benefits

which incr,case

the value of their property. Such benefits

may **arise** both from the fact that **restrictions** applicable to theirneighbors

protectthe liwdovners themselves

from increased

flood hazardsand from the ivailabllity to the landowner

of flood insurance end federally-related financing. See Responsible Citizensin Opposition **to** the Flood Plain Ordinance V. City of Asheville. 302 S.R.2d st 213. That the costs of dev&pment necessary to comply with flood hazard restrictions are "prdn:Lbitive" **or** that. the lover value **of** a less intensive

use of land is not immediately profitable

pay merely indicatethat .s

particularlctndowner has paid too much for land in a floodhazard area. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

do not require that the government guarantcw that a landownerbe favored to the detriment

of the public **merely** becausehe has paid a speculative **price** for land. **As** the SupremeCou,rt stated in Penn CentrslTransportation Co. v. New **York** City:

[T]he submission

thw [landowners]

may establish

a ' **taking ’**  simply by shoving that they have been

p. 1503. Eonornble CnrlosValder - Pago 5 (Jh-328)

denied the nbility to exploitn propertyinterest that they heretofolre had believed vns availsble for developmet is quite simplyuntenable.

438 U.S. at 130; see also And:nmv. Allard,444 U.S. 51. 65-66 (1979). --
**~For** these reasons, ve conclude

that adoption

by the countyof the federnlstandard

for floodhaxerd laud-use regulation

in question.

see 44 C.P.R. 960.3(d)(3) (quoted previously), would not on its face effect n taking. The validity of the appllcatiou of a flood plain ordinance to a particularpiece of..property depends upou fnctual determinations.

Numerous courts in other **stntes** have upheld similar flood zone prohibitions.. 8ee Turnervr County of Del Norte, 24 Cal. App. 3d 311. 101 Cal. 'Rptr. 93 S.E.Zd 16 (Ga. 1978). cert. denied. 1 (1972):Pope v. City of **Atlant** Plumbing6 Bent1 C40 U.S. 936 (1979);

ng ~I&.~v.za Nnturai ReaourccrCouncil.276 377 (Iown 1979); (l4aml.. 1972). q

Le~L~;j;.2;~;f D=dham- 284 England v. Board of Apue

. . Usdin v.,State Departmentof Envlronmentrl PI ,(N.J; 8uner.Ct. LAW Div. 19fa).aff'd. 430 A.2d 94! **: “**  **, 249** 

**N%%**

**. .**  IN.E.2d 891
m Subnru of New (Haas. App. Ct. 1979); yeaction. 414 A.2d 280 9 (N.J.Super.Ct. ,&p. Old. 1981); Ma le Leaf Iuvex~. Inc. v. State Departmentof 8ce also Graham v.~Bstuary Ecology, 565 P.Zdwi. 1977) Properties.

Inc.. 399 80. 2d 1374 (Fl;. i-t. denied,454 U.S. 1083 (1981).

You also indicqtethnt tire proposed **regulation** would apply only to floodhasard areas on the Fiueces Biver which are designated by the Federal Bmergency Plarugement Agency and **that** the Agency plans to **designate** only a portion of IBS totalmumher of floodhazard atess nt
a the. Becuuse this may rewlt in differing **treatment** of landoeners who nre similarly. situated.

you ask **whether** such partial regulation violatesthe Equal Protection(Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

We note *s a prefatorywetter that Gulf Coast countiesare not limitedin their enactment and enforcement

of floodhsrard regulations to nrens which have been designeted as flood hasnrd areas by the FederalRmergency

Dnnagement

Agency. Counties

hold only thosepouers nnd dutiesthat nre specificnlly or **by** necessary

implication

conferred
on them. Canales v. Lau8n:Lin. 214 S.W.Zd 451 (Ten. 1948). As initiallyenacted. the Flood-Controland Insurance Act granted only limited

powers to counties. See Ten. Water Code S16.311et seq. This office previously concludei~>hat this act nuthoriree political subdivisions

to enact land use regulstions which have as theirpurpose and effect eomplinnce with the requir-ts of **the** National Flood Iosurnnce Program, but that, such regulationshave no application outside of federally designsted flood hasnrd **areas.** See **Attorney** General OpinionsWI-171 (1983'); R-978 (1977). NeverthelG. srticle 1581e-1 grnnts l

dditionsl flood damage control powers **to** counties bordering the Gulf of **Mexicc~ or**  **ita tidewater**  limits. These pavers sre not restrictedto or conditioned on **the** actions of **any** federnl

p. 1504Eonorable CarlosValdez - Page 6 (JM-328)

ageucy in dcsiguating nn aren ,as

n floodhasard. See **Attorney** General OpinionsHW-171 (1980); N-1024 (1977). As ve inKsted in Attorney General Opinion JM-123 (1983).article 1581e-1must be construedin conformity

with its purpose of enabling certain counties to quelify for pnrtlcipatiou**in** the National Flood Insurance Program. Consequently,

**Attorney** CaneralOpinionJM-I23 concluded **that** a particular county lackad powers broad enough to deny utility sewice to individuals

and autities vhlch were not in compllauca vlth county flood regulations. Navcrth~aless. federal regulations encourage comprehensive

flood mwagemrut by local c-nitleo sad expressly allow more stringent regulat:tcms

than we federally required. See 44 C.F.X. 1160.1,60.3(b). Thw,, Gulf Coast countiesare **not** limi?Z in theirarticle 1581c-1flood z,cgulatiou pavers **to** areaswhich have been designated

as floodhasard **as ’** **eae** by the fedaralgovernmant. They are, howwer. limlted to enactin only land use regulations and only in flood-prone

areas. See **Attonmy** GaneralOpinionE-1024 (1977).

- If tha countydecides , houever, that it is feasibleto enact nnd anforceflood regulations only in the areaswhich have been federally designated

as flood haanrd areas , such action vould not result in a danialof equalprotection **ea a**  **matter** of law. It is well established **that** governmanta entitianamp implamenttheir programs a step at n time., See City of NW Orleans v. Uukas, 427 U.S. 297 (1976); Kataenba~v. Xorgan. 384 U2. ace also Beckandorff v. Rarris-Calvcston

CoastalSubl3:Ldence District,558 S.W.2d 75, 81 (Tax. Civ. App. - Houston [14th D&t.] 1977). aff'd 563 S.W.Zd 239 (Tex. 1978). So long as the Gulf Coast countyha~ational reason for **not** enacting

and enforcingflood regulations in all flood hazard areas at one tkc. **no** aqua1 protectionclaim anista ls a matter of lnv. The validity of the actual application of this langunge to a parficular piece of property

depands

upon the fscts involvedin **each cnse.** 

1. This is **not** to sn:r that. **in** a particularcase. a landowner could not show that a county's flood plain boundary draving Is dis**cridnetory** as applied. See enerall 154 Cal. Rptr. 580 v9'79 -s+ Visa v. State, 92 Cal. App. 3d 15. **Nor** do ve nddress the question of whether a partlculnr landounermay have other claims against the enforcement

of a flood p1c:d.n

rcgulstion. **See Hcrnandcz**  **v. City**  of Lnfaycttc.

649 F.2d 336 (5~11

Cir. denied. 102 

### s.ct. 1251 (19A2); 1981). (cnnteral cstoppel) e Town of Large v. Imperial Aomes Corporatfon.

309 So.2d 571 (Pin. 1975) (equitable cstoppel).

p. 1505. Nonornble Carloa Valder - Page 7 (JR-3281

Language in loaLL land-use regulations vhich tracks the criter:ia of the Natioual Flood Insurance

Program **set** forth **in 44**  C.F.R. section 60.3(d)(3),

does not 00 its face effecta "taking" in violation **of** the Fifth and FourteauthAmeudmeets of the United States Constitution. The county may adopt floodhaaard regulations oue step at n **the,** such that they apply 0019 In federally designatedflood hazard areas, vithout coustitutlag a violation

of the Bqual Protection **Clause** of the Fourteeuth

Ameuhseut**as** a matter **of** lav. The validity of the ectual application of this language

to a partiwlar piece of propertydepends upou **the** facts invo:tved in each use.

JIM MATTOX **Attorney** Geueralof Texas

**TonGxEEN First**  Assistant **Attorney** Gaaeml

**DAVID X.**  **BICEARDS** Executive

**Aaaiatant Attorney**  General

ROBERTGRAT Special

**Assistant Attorney**  General

RICR GILPIN Chairman.

Opinion**Comittae**
Prepared

by Jeuuifer

Riggs **Assistant Attorney**  General

APPROVEI: OPINIONCGXRITlEE

**Rick** Gilpin.Chairman Jon Bible Tony Guillory Jim noellinger Jennifer

Riggs Nancy Sutton **Snrah** Uoelk

p. 1506