SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 27


Water Fish Commission, the Department of Natural Resources or the
U.S. Department of Interior, or successor agencies, as being endangered
or threatened. As Florida has more endangered and threatened species
than any other continental state, it is the intent of the Legislature to
provide for research and management to conserve and protect these
species as a natural resource.

 "(4) Establishment of an Advisory Council-
(a) The director of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission shall
establish an Endangered and Threatened Species Advisory Council con-
sisting of 10 members.

 Case Law:
 The Graham v. Estuary Properties Inc. (Fla. 399 So. 2d 1374) decision
in Florida is the most progressive decision to date concerning the use of
land use regulations as an effective means of protecting wetlands via
development control.

 Background:
 In compliance with Florida Land and Water Management Act of 1972,
Estuary Properties submitted an application for a development permit for
their development of regional impact (DRI) to Lee County Board of
County Commissioners. The permit was denied due to an 1800-acre
black mangrove forest which would be destroyed and therefore cause an
adverse environmental impact. The developers appeal to the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission was denied.
 Estuary Properties contended that the Commission had improperly
denied its application because the various impacts of the development
had not been balanced nor had the Commission made suggestions con-
cerning ways to correct the inadequacies of the DRI.
 "The developers also attacked the Commission's denial of the permit
as an unconstitutional taking because the owner's right to use his prop-
erty had been violated.
 "Following denial by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Com-
mission, the developer next turned to the Florida District Court of
Appeals (Estuary Properties v. Askew [Fla. App. 381 So. 2d 1126]).
 "In December 1979, the Florida District Court of Appeals ruled (later
to be overturned by the Florida Supreme Court) that a government
agency that denies an application for development of regional impact in
an environmentally sensitive area must prove that the project has an
adverse affect on the environment and moreover, a local government
cannot deny an owner of wetlands all reasonable use of property without
paying compensation (Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, April 1980).
The court reasoned that: benefits to the general public should not be
borne by a few property owners, therefore, the development permit
could not be denied unless compensation was administered.
 "The case pinpoints the judicial uneasiness over ad hoc regulations of