8th Circuit - Takings - Exactions - Requirement to Connect to City Water This case raises the interesting question of whether a local government can prohibit properties to drill water wells and instead, require connection to the city water system. The issues included facts that required the property owner to extend the city's system to its property at its expense. The lower court ruled in favor of the city and the panel affirmed. The court analyzed the case under Lucas and Penn Central concluding that the diminished value of the property was not a taking as the property still had economic viability subject only to water restrictions. The Plaintiff did not raise anti-trust claims of tying. Any thoughts on whether that might have been a viable claim absent some State law exempting the measure from antitrust laws under City of Boulder 455 U.S. 40 (1982)? Becker vs. Hillsboro, MO, 233367P.pdf<https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/01/233367P.pdf> Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/>