Question

home / study / business / finance / finance questions and answers / johnny appleseed owns a 356 acre fruit orchard with scenic river frontage along the floodsalot ... Your question has expired and been refunded. We were unable to find a Chegg Expert to answer your question. Question: Johnny Appleseed owns a 356 acre fruit orchard with scenic river frontage along the Floodsalot Ri... Johnny Appleseed owns a 356 acre fruit orchard with scenic river frontage along the Floodsalot River which he purchased in 1976. Early in the 1930s, the state government received money from the federal government to be used on projects that would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Starting in 1934, the state began to erect a dam 4 miles upstream from what would become Johnny’s property. The dam was completed in 1939 and provided electricity, water for drinking, flood control and recreational activities on the reservoir. In 1996, the state experienced an unusually rainy winter and that spring, after almost 60 years of reliability, the dam began to show evidence of stress and leaks began to appear. Engineers conducted an emergency inspection of the dam and concluded that water must be released quickly or the valley below might run the risk of a catastrophic flood. Acknowledging that releasing water in the manner recommended would cause some limited flooding, the agency responsible for operating the dam released the water. Sadly, Johnny’s fruit orchard was flooded and, as a result, he lost his crop for that year. In addition, many of the fruit trees in his orchard were damaged beyond repair and Johnny was faced with the expensive prospect of replacing these trees and waiting several years for the trees to mature enough to bear fruit. ASSIGNMENT: Assuming that there has been a “taking” as defined in your textbook, was this a taking under the state’s right of eminent domain (therefore requiring due process and compensation) or a taking under the state’s police powers (therefore no compensation is required)? You decide which taking applies in this case and write a paper defending your decision and how pertinent and relevant your authority is for supporting your position. If anyone could offer me their opinion on what direction to take this in I would appreciate it! To clarify: "taking" means a government seizing or property

Answer 1

In this case it is assumed that the State Government has taken the property i.e. seized the property. Given the facts and circumstances of the case it can be inferred that this taking was under the state’s right of eminent domain and hence will require due process and compensation to Johnny.

In this case Johnny’s fruit orchard is a real property and the state government has taken it for a public utility i.e. for building a dam. In case of eminent domain the state government has the power to even alienate this property or destroy it when faced with a case of extreme necessity and when there is a need for public utility.

The case will be seen as per the provision of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which says that ‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation’. Eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty. Also public use in such cases is synonymous with the phrase ‘use by the public’. The water that is provided by the dam and the electricity being generated by it is being used by the public in this case.

As such the state will be bound to make good the loss to Johnny.

State’s police power will not be applicable in this case as there is no inherent power of state in this situation to take Johnny’s land. Also the land is being used for making a dam (a public utility) and is not being used for supporting and promoting public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. In this case there is no need to regulate land use through a general plan and zoning, regulate pollution, do environmental control and do rent control. Hence police power will not be applicable in this case.