In Hearts Bluff Game Ranch V

question 61

Multiple Choice

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 held that:

• A) Texas would have to compensate Hearts for the value of the land as wetlands mitigation property, not as part of a reservoir
• B) the Army Corps would have to compensate Hearts for the difference in the value of the land for wetlands mitigation versus as part of reservoir property
• C) Hearts never has a specific right to mitigation banking, so lost no right due compensation
• D) the wetlands mitigation permit process was arbitrary and capricious, so nothing Hearts was told by the Army Corp mattered and it had no rights to enforce
• E) none of the other choices