Opinion ID: 1668800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does Ramer have an unequivocal right to tie into the sewer trunk line?

Text: Ramer argues that the sewer right of way deed that his predecessor in title executed reserved a benefit for his property, if and when the county constructed a sewer line, to hook into the sewer trunk line. The pertinent language in the right of way deed reads: For the consideration aforesaid, the undersigned do grant, bargain, sell and convey unto said county the right and privilege of a perpetual use of said lands for such public purpose, together with all rights and privileges necessary or convenient for the full use and enjoyment thereof, including the right of ingress to and egress from said strip and the right to cut and keep clear all trees, undergrowth, and other obstructions on the lands of the undersigned adjacent to said strip when deemed reasonably necessary for the avoidance of danger in and about said public use of said strip, and the right to prohibit the construction or maintenance of any improvement or obstruction (except fencing) on, over, across or upon said area herein conveyed.  In consideration of the benefit of the property of the undersigned by reason of the construction of said sewer, the undersigned hereby release Jefferson County, the State of Alabama, and/or the United States of America, and/or any of their agents from all damages present or prospective to the property of the undersigned arising or resulting from the construction, maintenance and repair of said sewer, and the undersigned do hereby admit and acknowledge that said sewer if and when constructed will be a benefit to the property of the undersigned. (Emphasis added.) The trial court reviewed the deed and in its judgment stated: Ramer's contention that the Court should order the Jefferson County Commission to issue him a sewer permit to serve from 318 to 400 apartment units is due to be denied. The deed of Ramer's predecessor in title contains no commitment to a sewer allocation. This deed is a right of way deed dated October 25, 1968 from Ramer's predecessors in title to Jefferson County. It predates the sewer moratorium by sixteen years. It recites consideration of $979.00 (a rate of $1,000 per acre) for `the right and privilege of a perpetual use of said lands for such public purpose....' In a separate paragraph of the deed, a release to Jefferson County is recited and in such paragraph is the wording, `In consideration of the benefit of the property by reason of the construction of said sewer ... and the undersigned do hereby admit and acknowledge that said sewer if and when constructed will be a benefit to the property of the undersigned.' This [sic] above recited words do not constitute an agreement of Jefferson County to permit a sewer connection at any time under any circumstances. At best, it is an implied agreement that the sewer will be available and of benefit to the property if constructed. The deed expression, however, did not and could not anticipate that a subsequent intervening circumstance could make the sewer unavailable to a great number of property owners in Southern Jefferson County including the owner of Ramer's property. Based upon these matters, the Court concludes that the deed to Ramer's predecessor in title does not grant to Ramer the unequivocal right to connect to the sewer trunk line through his property at any time he desires. Aside from the question whether the deed is a contract to obligate Jefferson County to provide Ramer, as the present owner sewer usage, the imposition of the sewer moratorium is a valid exercise of police powers by Jefferson County. Peterson v. Jefferson County, supra. The evidence shows Ramer to be an experienced and knowledgeable developer. He knew the `lifting resolution' was possible, but he did not seek a sewer allocation until January 1979. There is no evidence that he did not know of the March 22, 1977 `lifting resolution' and it is unlikely that such was the case. The simple facts are that, taking into consideration the sewage emergency and conditions existing in Jefferson County at the time Ramer purchased his property, there was insufficient time for him to obtain the required zoning of his property and create development plans in time for the fortunate circumstances that permitted the moratorium to be partially lifted in March 1977. And, without question, Ramer had knowledge of the moratorium at the time he purchased the property. Ramer has not, as claimed, been denied due process. The sufficiency of the due process procedure of the Moratorium Commission has twice been confirmed. Peterson v. Jefferson County, supra; Custred v. Jefferson County, 360 So.2d 285 (Ala.Sup.Ct.1978). Notwithstanding these decisions, the evidence shows that the procedures and hearing afforded by the moratorium and the Moratorium Commission met the tests of due process. Katy [Katz] v. Alabama State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 351 So.2d 890 (Note 6) (Ala.Sup.Ct.1977). There is no `taking' involved here. Ramer has his property and, assuming regulatory requirements to have been met, could have developed his property with an on site sewage disposal system that had been approved. His use of public sewage facilities is stopped now by a temporary limitation. After reviewing the entire deed, we agree with the trial judge that Jefferson County was not under a legal obligation to provide the grantor a sewer connection at any time, under any circumstances. Regarding Ramer's argument that the County's actions constitute a taking of his property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the County, in brief, has directed the Court's attention to recently decided federal cases which address the issue of whether a governmental moratorium on sewage allocation constitutes a taking of property without just compensation. In Kent Island Joint Venture v. Smith, 452 F.Supp. 455 (D.Md.1978), a landowner-developer brought suit against local officials for blocking his development plans. The landowner alleged in part that the defendants misrepresented the effects of certain proposed amendments to the county sewage plan. In addressing the land developer's claim that the defendants were taking his property without just compensation, the Court held: One of the constitutional violations claimed by plaintiff here is the alleged taking of its property without just compensation.    This Court is satisfied that the acts alleged do not constitute a `taking' within the alleged constitutional sense which would permit claims to be asserted in this suit against these defendants. Although governmental interference by regulation of the use of private property can constitute a de facto or constructive taking, there is no taking in the constitutional sense unless the interference is so substantial as to render the property worthless or useless. Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton, 469 F.2d 956, 963 (1st Cir.1972); Smoke Rise, Inc. v. Washington Suburban San. Com'n, 400 F.Supp. 1369, 1382 (D.Md.1975). It is not enough that the regulation deprives the property owner of the most profitable use of the property, United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155, 168, 78 S.Ct. 1097, [1104] 2 L.Ed.2d 1228 (1958), or that the regulation causes a severe decline in the property's value. Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594, 82 S.Ct. 987, [990] 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962). In Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915), a decline in value from $800,000 to $60,000 was found by the Supreme Court to be insufficient to constitute a taking. Before a court can conclude that there has been an unconstitutional taking of property, the government regulation must deprive the landowner of all reasonable uses of his land. C.F. Lytle Co. v. Clark, 491 F.2d 834, 838 (10th Cir.1974); see Donohoe Const. Co. v. Maryland National C.P. & P. Com'n, 567 F.2d 603, 608 n. 13 (4th Cir.1977). Plaintiff has done no more than allege that the actions of the defendants have deprived it of the `most reasonable' use of its property and have resulted in `substantial decrease' in the property's value. These allegations are clearly insufficient to establish a taking in the constitutional sense. Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, supra ; United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., supra ; Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton, supra . 452 F.Supp. at 460.