for the purpose of building a toll plaza and an administrative building, which the court deemed “necessary for the construction and use” of a state highway. State v. M. Madic, Inc., C.A. Nos. 96C-11-192, 96C-11-193, 96C-11-196, 96C-11-197, slip. op. 17-19, Quillen, J. (Del.Super.Jan. 24, 1997). Ultimately, the court reasoned, the property owners’ proffered interpretation of the statute would “hamstring DelDOT’s efforts to construct any state roadway, and Title 17 is not so restrictive.” Id. Courts in other states have also concluded that environmental mitigation is a practical necessity for public construction projects and have allowed state agencies to condemn private land for wetlands mitigation. See State v. Trap Rock Industries, Inc., 338 N.J.Super. 92, 768 A.2d 227, 231 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Dare County Board of Education v. Sakaria,
holding that loss of access resulting from a median strip constructed as part of a highway widening project was a proper consideration because any factor that has a present quantifiable effect on the market value of the property is proper as an element of damages holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property holding that a certified question was sufficient when it was evident that the statement of the issue reflected the grounds for suppression that defendant asserted at the trial court even though it could have been more precisely drafted holding that a landowner whose property was taken in a highway widening project could recover only for the lost land and not for losses caused by traffic islands constructed as part of the same project holding that although mitigation is strictly environmental in its nature the highway could not have been constructed without it  therefore the property at issue was realistically needed for transportation purposes