Big Oak Farms, Inc. v. United States
105 Fed. Cl. 48
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are landowners in Mississippi County, Missouri within the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway.
- The Floodway is part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project established after flood-control legislation in 1928.
- On May 2, 2011, the Corps breached the frontline levee to activate the Floodway, flooding plaintiffs’ land.
- Sand and gravel deposits resulting from the flooding were left on plaintiffs’ land and allegedly contribute to recurring flooding.
- Plaintiffs allege the government acquired flowage easements and are entitled to compensation for damages and for excess deposits, while the government moves to dismiss the takings claims under RCFC 12(b)(6).
- The court analyzes whether flood-induced damages or the operation of the Floodway constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, applying Ridge Line and related precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether May 2, 2011 flood constitutes a taking under Ridge Line. | Plaintiffs contend intentional flooding supports a taking. | The flood is a single event, not inevitably recurring, thus not a taking. | Count I dismissed; single flood not a taking. |
| Whether the May 2, 2011 flood damages state a taking. | Damages from the flood amount to a taking. | Damages are tort consequences, not a taking. | Dismissed; damages are tort-based under Ridge Line. |
| Whether the Floodway operation plan itself states a taking. | Current plan causes inevitable recurring flooding. | Plaintiffs fail to show more frequent flooding than without the plan. | Dismissed; no stated taking from the current plan. |
| Whether sand and gravel deposits create a taking. | Deposits cause frequent flooding and devalue lands, constituting a taking. | Deposits are consequential damages, not a taking. | Dismissed; deposits constitute consequential damages, not a taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir.2011) (whether flood-related injuries can rise to a taking when not inevitably recurring)
- Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir.2003) (two-prong tort-takings analysis; whether flooding is taking and whether government benefits offset owner’s loss)
- Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1939) (taking analysis for flood control; not every flood constitutes a taking)
- United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1917) (character of the invasion determines taking, not the amount of damage)
- Matthews v. United States, 87 Ct.Cl. 662 (Ct.Cl. 1938) (early flood-control takings context; impairment of overflow as not a taking)
- Cotton Land Co. v. United States, 75 F.Supp. 232 (Ct.Cl.1948) (sediment-induced flooding can be a taking when it constitutes permanent invasion)
- Barnes v. United States, 538 F.2d 865 (Ct.Cl.1976) (frequent or permanent flooding may support a taking; distinguish from incidental damages)