Two recent environmental lawsuits have produced notable rulings. In Florida, a federal judge found the state’s Department of Environmental Protection violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing wastewater pollution that starved nearly 2,000 manatees, and ordered a moratorium on new septic permits in the affected watershed. In California, a Healdsburg couple won a refund of an affordable-housing fee charged as a condition of building their own home, in one of the first follow-on cases to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. Both cases are reshaping how government agencies can regulate land and water.
Florida Held Liable for Manatee Deaths in the Indian River Lagoon
The group Bear Warriors United sued the secretary of the Florida DEP in 2022, arguing that the state’s permitting of wastewater discharges and septic systems let excess nutrients flow into the North Indian River Lagoon in Brevard and southern Volusia counties. Those nutrients fueled algae blooms that wiped out the seagrass manatees eat, and the animals starved.1National Sea Grant Law Center. Bear Warriors United, Inc. v. Hamilton, Case Alert
On December 18, 2024, U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza granted partial summary judgment for Bear Warriors United. The court established that the DEP has regulatory authority over the wastewater discharges at issue, that those discharges put excess nutrients in the lagoon, that the nutrients killed seagrass and triggered harmful algae blooms, and that the resulting seagrass loss amounted to a “taking” of manatees under the Endangered Species Act.2FindLaw. Bear Warriors United, Inc. v. Hamilton
On April 11, 2025, Judge Mendoza ruled that the risk of further manatee deaths was ongoing under the state’s current approach, confirming the DEP’s ESA violation. He rejected the state’s argument that complying with the Clean Water Act shielded it from ESA liability, writing that Clean Water Act compliance “is just one piece of the regulatory puzzle the state must solve.”3Florida Phoenix. Judge Finds Manatee Die-Off Proves Florida Broke Endangered Species Law The ruling is significant because it holds a state regulatory agency liable for habitat destruction caused by its permitting decisions, not by any direct action of the agency.1National Sea Grant Law Center. Bear Warriors United, Inc. v. Hamilton, Case Alert
What Florida Must Do
On May 19, 2025, Judge Mendoza issued a permanent injunction. The DEP has to apply for an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which requires developing a long-term conservation plan for the lagoon. Until that permit is in hand, a moratorium on new septic tank permits in the North Indian River Lagoon watershed took effect July 17, 2025.4Central Florida Public Media. Judge Orders Steps to Protect Manatees in Indian River Lagoon The state must also set up biomedical monitoring and a supplemental feeding program for manatees in the area, and file quarterly public reports on manatee deaths, water quality, and seagrass conditions.5Animal Law Conference. Bear Warriors United, Inc. v. Alexis Lambert, Appellees Brief
The State’s Appeal
Florida appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. The district court denied the state’s request to pause the injunction during the appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit also denied a stay, finding the state had not shown a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”5Animal Law Conference. Bear Warriors United, Inc. v. Alexis Lambert, Appellees Brief A divided panel upheld Judge Mendoza’s order 2-1 in June 2025.6The Invading Sea. Manatees, Florida DEP, Endangered Species Act, Indian River Lagoon The appeal remains in briefing, and as of the most recent filings the state had not applied for the required incidental take permit.7Pacific Legal Foundation. Bear Warriors United, Inc. v. Alexis A. Lambert, Amicus Curiae Brief
Healdsburg Refunds a Housing Fee After Pilling Lawsuit
Jessica and Chris Pilling filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Healdsburg, California in September 2024, after the city charged them a fee as a condition of building a home on their own lot. They had used California’s SB 9 law to subdivide their quarter-acre property and planned a new house and an accessory dwelling unit alongside an existing duplex.8Healdsburg Tribune. City Settles Inclusionary Housing Fee Lawsuit
Under Healdsburg’s inclusionary housing ordinance, the city first demanded a $40,000 in-lieu fee or a land donation for affordable housing. After the council amended the ordinance in February 2024, the fee dropped to about $20,135, which Jessica Pilling paid under protest as part of $79,190 in total permit fees.9Press Democrat. Healdsburg Housing Policy Lawsuit Settlement Represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, the Pillings argued that building their own home did not cause the regional affordable housing shortage and that the city could not use permit power to extract fees unrelated to the project’s impact.10Pacific Legal Foundation. Pilling v. City of Healdsburg, CA
Less than two months later, the city settled for $35,000: a full refund of the $20,135 fee, $15,000 for the Pillings’ time and hardship, and $5,000 in attorney fees.9Press Democrat. Healdsburg Housing Policy Lawsuit Settlement City Manager Jeff Kay called the situation a “gray area” and said the city settled to avoid a drawn-out fight with a well-funded advocacy group. The planning director said Healdsburg does “not intend to apply the housing in lieu fee for new units created under SB9” going forward.8Healdsburg Tribune. City Settles Inclusionary Housing Fee Lawsuit Because the case settled, the broader ordinance was not invalidated and remains in force for other projects.
How Sheetz Changed the Ground
The Pilling case was built on the Supreme Court’s unanimous April 2024 decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, which held that the Fifth Amendment’s protections against uncompensated takings apply to permit fees imposed by legislatures, not only those set by individual administrators.11U.S. Supreme Court. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22-1074 Sheetz involved a $23,420 traffic impact fee charged to a homeowner with no evidence tying the amount to the project’s actual traffic impact.12Pacific Legal Foundation. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado Permit conditions now have to meet the “nexus and proportionality” tests regardless of who set them.
Follow-On Cases
Pacific Legal Foundation has carried the argument into other cities. In May 2025 the foundation filed redT Homes v. City and County of Denver, challenging a “Linkage Fee” ordinance that charged $25,000 on a four-unit single-family project and $45,000 on a two-duplex project.13Pacific Legal Foundation. Denver’s Inclusionary Zoning Extortion Scheme Challenged in Court In November 2025, East Palo Alto settled a similar case brought by homeowner Wesley Yu, agreeing to exempt SB 9 projects from its inclusionary housing fees after Yu was charged $54,891 for a home and backyard cottage.14Palo Alto Online. East Palo Alto Settles Suit, Exempts Lot Splits From Housing Fees
What These Rulings Signal
The two cases cut in different directions but share a theme of courts tightening the link between government action and real-world cause. In Florida, a state agency can no longer treat its permitting choices as insulated from the Endangered Species Act when those choices foreseeably destroy habitat, and Clean Water Act compliance alone will not shield it. For municipalities, the Sheetz framework is making it harder to charge flat housing-related fees on small projects without showing a direct connection to the burden the project creates. Expect more litigation on both fronts: the Eleventh Circuit’s final word on the manatee case is still pending, and the Denver suit will test how far the Sheetz reasoning extends into inclusionary zoning programs.