SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Services of Mead Data Central, Ina s ., PAGE 17 i' 1991 U.S. App.. LEXIS 30233, x•40 , i -End footnotes:- - - - - - - - - - - - we emphasize that the issue'j is not whether the Government had the right to im ase itself and its ;'activities an these plaintiffs. Whatever right the Plaintiffs had to be let alone! was overcome by the Government's need in the interest of public health and safety to monitor the ground water contamination. Indeed, plaintiffs expressly concede that point. .The issue before the wart ?in Hendler I was whether, on the facts before it,. the Government took any property by permanent physical occupation, thus Obligating it to pay plaintiff:! just compensation. The trial judge thought not, absent more facts, we ,think nothing more needed to C*413 be shown. The. trial fudge denied plaintiffs' motion for summary Judgment 'on this point. he snou3.d; have granted it. „;TYte A:ctivi:ties Conducted :ori the nd by the :state` of Califo:rni-A t ' Finally, the question was raised whether the activities of the State of California were airtribu:table tp :the Federal. Government. This question bears ort two importantissues '106e, whether the Federal Governanent caused and is ltabl.e for the totality ofactivity. i;This is important for determining the damages owed , d elsa fo:r determinin by the Governmentang, should VWM be any doubt, whether. theme was enough actIV Ity by 6e Government to constitute a taking. Sedong1. it poen to the issue of that it i~ plaintiffs had to prove -- was it enough oto shcat4 total activity, Of did: they need to. show which of the actors did what.. !° The trial. fudge. was of the view that it was necessary to establish that a cor»mon law agency relationship"' existed between the GovQrn�►ent. and the State of Cal fornia in order for the Government to bear responsibility for the state`s activities On the land.. He: aon.cl:uded that there was insufficient proof of, such a. r`e at on hip;. Henclleri . . 9 _01:100. Common law: agency is one test; for determining C*421 the Government'.! r�eSponsibility, but it is not11the only basis for establishing the Government's liability for the 5tate'5 actsrrities. The activities of the sane undertakings It is a basic principle of eminent domain of EPA: and of U ifornia were two coordinate and coordinated partS law that government officials -- eXecutive b'rahcl vffici`als -- derive thilr *power to take private property fns a 001.1.c purpose by A grant ofl authority from the legislature'. Once legislative authority is aiatained, ;puthdr�itid members of the government may determine hoW and when the authority will be exercised. See IA J. Sackmant supra a, r Government official.! could rpt, absent proper lkq*$lative authority, lawfully f` eater plaintiffs.:' ;property and; begin drilling wells and installing equipment. �- Likewise, any administrative drder issued to allow such an entrance would have �. to be based on such proper legislative authority. In this case, authority flows from CE ui . :anti it was under lthe authority of that federal statute that. 'the EPit; 'Oro, isscted. i 11 he Claims. Court found that the EPA Order authorized access to pjainUff'S property for "EPA officials and other authorized personnel, fnclt�ding state off iCtals" 1*433 9116 that ,;such authority was based on 42 U.S.:C. 55 NEXIS EXIS LEXIS �.