Big Oak Farms, Inc. v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 45
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Big Oak Farms, Inc. and others) sued after the Army Corps activated the Birds Point–New Madrid Floodway in May 2011, breaching levees to divert floodwaters and inundating land in the Floodway. Plaintiffs assert Fifth Amendment takings (temporary or permanent flowage easements) and related easement-contract claims.
- Much of the Floodway (about 130,000 acres) is subject to government-acquired perpetual flowage easements; roughly 20,000 acres were not encumbered because the government contends those acres would flood regardless.
- The Corps invoked the Floodway to protect upstream areas (e.g., Cairo, IL); operation lasted from early May until mid‑June 2011 with significant displacement and property damage.
- The court previously dismissed takings claims for failure to allege permanent or inevitably recurring flooding, but reinstated them after Arkansas Game & Fish clarified that such a per se rule is inappropriate.
- The parties completed limited discovery and submitted cross-motions for partial summary judgment focused on whether Sponenbarger and Danforth bar takings liability and on allocation of proof. The court found the record insufficient and denied both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sponenbarger’s "relative benefits" test still bars takings liability in flood cases | Sponenbarger is relevant only to compensation after liability (Horne undermines its liability role) | Sponenbarger remains a valid defense to liability in flooding cases | Court: Sponenbarger remains viable for liability; Horne did not overrule it |
| Who bears the burden to show causation and offsetting benefits | Plaintiffs must show Floodway caused incremental flooding beyond what would occur without MR&T | Gov argues plaintiffs must also prove benefits do not offset harms | Court: Plaintiffs bear initial causation burden; government bears burden to prove relative benefits offset harm |
| Whether summary judgment can be granted now on Sponenbarger/Danforth grounds | Plaintiffs: government’s affidavits are premature and discovery needed to rebut | Government: its evidence shows lands would have flooded absent project and benefits outweigh harms | Court: Record lacks tract‑specific proof of incremental harm and tract‑specific benefit accounting; summary judgment denied |
| Whether flowage easements must be considered in liability analysis | Plaintiffs: easement claims are distinct but relevant to damages/rights | Government: easements exist and affect liability analysis (some lands unencumbered) | Court: Easements must be considered together with takings analysis; they complicate liability and cannot be ignored |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. 256 (1939) (relative‑benefits test may preclude takings liability from flood control programs)
- Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (1939) (no taking where property would have been flooded absent project unless government causes additional burden)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012) (temporary flooding may be a taking; no per se permanence rule; multi‑factor balancing test)
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 351 (2015) (physical appropriation is a taking; discussion distinguishes valuation/compensation issues from threshold liability)
- Van Buren v. United States, 697 F.2d 1058 (Fed. Cir.) (government bears burden to show benefits outweigh detriments under relative‑benefits analysis)