The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a civil division ruling that prevented the Town of Colchester from using eminent domain powers to condemn waterfront property for a municipal stormwater treatment facility, delivering a victory for property rights advocates and setting limits on municipal land-taking authority.

In *Mongeon Bay Properties, LLC v. Town of Colchester* (2026 VT 1), the state's highest court upheld the lower court's determination that the town failed to meet its burden of proving necessity for condemning property at 885 East Lakeshore Drive. The property sits in the middle of a larger, unsubdivided parcel owned by Mongeon Bay Properties on the shore of Malletts Bay in Colchester.

The dispute centers on the town's desire to build a stormwater treatment facility to help meet phosphorus reduction regulatory requirements and reduce potential liability related to an existing drainage system on the property. The town argued that taking the property would serve these environmental and municipal infrastructure goals.

The property in question contains residential camp structures that Mongeon Bay Properties leases to tenants. Significantly, the land is already burdened by an easement dating to 1979 that permits the town to place and maintain a stormwater drainpipe and catch basin. The town has utilized this easement since at least 1994 for drainage infrastructure.

Writing for the Vermont Supreme Court, Justice Cohen explained that the civil division correctly determined the town had not proven the necessity of condemning the entire property for its stormwater treatment goals. The opinion suggests that the existing easement arrangement already provided the town with sufficient access to address its stormwater management needs without requiring full property ownership.

The town's eminent domain petition argued that acquiring full ownership of the property would better enable it to comply with phosphorus reduction requirements imposed by environmental regulators. Phosphorus runoff into Lake Champlain and its tributaries has been a persistent environmental concern in Vermont, with municipalities facing increasing pressure to implement effective stormwater management systems.

Town officials also contended that owning the property outright would reduce potential liability issues related to the existing drainage infrastructure. Under the current easement arrangement, the town maintains drainage facilities on privately owned land, which could potentially create liability questions if problems arise.

However, the civil division found these arguments insufficient to justify the extraordinary governmental power of eminent domain. Vermont law requires municipalities to demonstrate that a proposed land taking is necessary for legitimate public purposes and that alternative approaches would not adequately serve those purposes.

Mongeon Bay Properties successfully argued that the town's existing easement rights already provided adequate access for stormwater management purposes. The company's legal team, led by Alexander LaRosa and John Mazzuchi of MSK Attorneys in Burlington, contended that full property ownership was not necessary to achieve the town's stated environmental and infrastructure goals.

The town was represented by Brian Monaghan and Kristen Shamis of Monaghan Safar PLLC, also based in Burlington. Town officials had argued that complete property control would provide greater flexibility in designing and implementing comprehensive stormwater treatment solutions.

The Vermont Supreme Court's decision reflects the state's careful approach to balancing legitimate municipal needs against property rights protections. While Vermont law recognizes broad municipal authority to use eminent domain for public purposes, courts require clear demonstrations of necessity before approving property condemnations.

This case particularly highlights tensions between environmental compliance requirements and private property rights. As Vermont municipalities face increasing regulatory pressure to address water quality issues in Lake Champlain, some have turned to eminent domain as a tool for acquiring land needed for environmental infrastructure projects.

The decision may influence how other Vermont municipalities approach similar stormwater management challenges. Towns seeking to use eminent domain for environmental infrastructure projects will need to carefully document that existing arrangements, including easements, are truly inadequate for their regulatory compliance needs.

For property owners, the ruling reinforces protections against overly broad interpretations of public necessity in eminent domain cases. The court's emphasis on evaluating whether existing property rights arrangements can adequately serve public purposes may limit future municipal land-taking efforts.

The case also demonstrates the complex interplay between long-standing property arrangements and evolving environmental regulations. The 1979 easement that predated current phosphorus reduction requirements proved sufficient to meet the town's needs without requiring full property ownership.

Legal experts note that the decision reflects Vermont courts' traditional skepticism toward eminent domain actions that cannot clearly demonstrate necessity beyond existing property arrangements. The ruling suggests that municipalities must thoroughly explore alternatives before resorting to property condemnation.

The Town of Colchester has not indicated whether it will seek reargument under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 or pursue alternative approaches to address its stormwater management needs within the existing easement framework.