FLOOD03849 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 8 Protection of Wetlands, and, in particular, the requirement to avoid wet- . lands unless they are the only practicable location. the .practicability" provision appears in both Executive Order 11990 and in Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Hanagement. the court's interpretation of .practicable. under Executive Order 11990 is equally applicable to use of the term in the companion order, Executive Order 11988. In this case, an environmental group sued the Department of Transportation (DOT) to enjoin them from building a highway through wetlands. Tbe court found thst DOT had adequately considered alternative sites and had taken the necessary minimization measures. The court found that the test for determining whether an alternative is practicable is whether it is capable of attainment within existing relevant constraints. the court determined thst: ....Executive Order 11990 allows consideration of environmental, technological, legal and financial factors. Of course, present unavailability of sufficient financial resources to implement either alternatives or mitigative measures cannot be used as the sole, or even the major determinant to a finding of impracticability.. 629 F.2d at 592, Footnote 7. Emphasis added. Thus, a location outside of a floodplain or wetland may not be rendered im- practicable solely by a lack of funds. Further, if a lack of money is con- . sidered along with other factors, it may not be the major factor in finding that a non-floodplain or non-wetland location is not practicable. Similarly, a present lack of money may not be the "sole or even the major" factor in finding that hazard mitigation measures are not practicable. It is also noteworthy that the court assumed, without specifically addressing, that Federal agencies could be sued under the executive orders. JONES AMENDMENT Section 1364 of the 1968 Act, as amended, requires financing institutions supervised, approved, regulate~or insured by the Federal Government to give purchasers of real property, located within special flood hazard areas, written notice of that fact prior to closing the transaction. While the requirement is clear, there is no express remedy identified in the statute for failure to comply. There have been a few cases decided on the question of whether a court can imply a remedy where a bank has failed to provide the required notice. In Pippin v. Burkhalter, 279 S.E.2d 603 (S.Car. 1981), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held the Jones Amendment does not create a private cause of action. It found that the purpose of the act was to encourage proper flood .