## Facts

- James J. Jentgen (trustee) bought a 101.8-acre undeveloped tract in Everglades City, Florida, near Everglades National Park, containing extensive mangroves and wetlands and lying partly within tidal areas.
- He planned a water-oriented residential development requiring significant dredging and filling, plus a dock and marina.
- Federal permitting applied under § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 and, after 1972, § 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, with federal jurisdiction extending to adjacent wetlands and permits evaluated under broad public-interest/environmental criteria.
- About 20 acres of “upland” could be developed without federal permits; roughly 80 acres implicated dredge-and-fill permitting.
- In 1973 and 1975, Jentgen sought permits affecting about 80 acres, proposing development of 60 acres and preservation of 20 acres.
- The Army Corps of Engineers denied the requested permits due to adverse physical and ecological effects on wetlands, but indicated it would allow development on a reduced portion if the plan were scaled back.
- Jentgen did not pursue Administrative Procedure Act review of the permit denials and instead sued for just compensation, claiming the regulatory scheme and denials made the property economically useless.
- Evidence showed the tract retained substantial market value (approximately $80,000 to $150,000) even with the restrictions.

## Issues

1. Whether application of § 10 and § 404 and the Corps’ permit denials effected a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether the restrictions went “too far” given remaining developable acreage, the Corps’ willingness to permit limited development, and the property’s continuing market value.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Claims held that no compensable taking occurred and dismissed the petition.
- The court found Jentgen suffered, at most, a noncompensable economic loss because the property retained economically viable uses and significant value.
- The court treated the permitting regime as a general environmental/navigational regulatory program, not a physical occupation or appropriation.
- The court concluded Jentgen’s expectations of intensive dredge-and-fill development were not reasonable in light of existing and foreseeably expanding federal regulation at the time of purchase.

## Legal Principles

- A diminution in value or denial of the most profitable use, without more, does not establish a Fifth Amendment taking.
- A regulatory taking generally requires deprivation of economically viable use when considering the economic impact, interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.
- Environmental and wetlands permitting that restricts dredging and filling is typically noncompensable when the owner retains substantial value and feasible uses, including partial development options.
- Where regulation operates as part of a broadly applicable public program and does not compel dedication or physically invade property, it is less likely to be treated as a taking.

## Conclusion

The Court of Claims rejected a wetlands-related regulatory takings claim because the permitting denials did not eliminate all reasonable use or value of the land, and the regulatory program was a general environmental measure rather than a governmental appropriation requiring compensation.


Jentgen v. United States, 657 F.2d 1210 (Ct. Cl. 1981)