"[1][2] The IPES also established "Stream Environment Zones (SEZs), which generally collect surface water from upland areas and direct it into Lake Tahoe and its tributaries."

[6] Suitum argued that the Agency's restrictions deprived her of “all reasonable and economically viable use” of her property, constituting a taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The argument maintained that Suitum's takings claim was unfit for adjudication due to the absence of a final agency decision regarding the permissible extent of development on her land.

[7] The United States Supreme Court ruled that TRPA's determination regarding Suitum's property development eligibility constituted a final agency decision, thus rendering her claim ripe for adjudication.

Additionally, the Court rejected TRPA's assertion that Suitum's claim was premature based on the "fitness for review" standard established in the Abbott Laboratories case.

Once TRPA conceded that it "...knew the full extent of the regulation’s impact in restricting [Suitum’s] development of her own land", Scalia believed that the final decision requirement had been satisfied.

[9][10] Text of Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) is available from: Cornell Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)