Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 443
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Casitas Municipal Water District owns a water right to divert up to 107,800 acre-feet annually and to beneficially use 28,500 acre-feet per year from the Ventura River.
- NMFS ESA actions in 2003-04 imposed bypass and flow requirements at Robles Diversion Dam to protect steelhead, increasing bypass from 20 to up to 50 cfs during migration periods.
- Casitas constructed the Robles fish passage facility (fish ladder) in response to ESA-listed steelhead; facility became operational in 2004.
- Caltrout sued asserting ESA takings and that Casitas’ operations harmed steelhead; Casitas then sued U.S. for Fifth Amendment taking and contract damages.
- California law limits water rights to beneficial use; water stored in Lake Casitas is not itself a compensable right, only the beneficial use is.
- The district seeks compensation for ‘lost water’ due to the biological opinion flow restrictions, arguing a physical taking occurred per the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is Casitas’ compensable property right under California law? | Casitas has a right to divert up to 107,800 acre-feet and to use 28,500 acre-feet; license scope defines title. | Right is only to beneficial use, constrained by public trust, reasonable use, and 5937; no standalone right to divert water. | Casitas' right is to beneficial use; taking requires interference with that right. |
| Do background principles (public trust, reasonable use, 5937) negate liability under Lucas? | Background principles do not strip the water right; federal action must be assessed against California law context. | Public trust/reasonable use/5937 negate any compensable interest if operations harm fish; Lucas defense applies. | Lucas defense fails; background principles do not automatically defeat Fifth Amendment claim here. |
| Is the government action a physical taking or a regulatory taking in light of Lucas/National Audubon? | Feds physically redirected water to the fish ladder, constituting a per se taking. | Action is regulatory; background principles apply; no per se taking. | Court adheres to prior ruling that the action is not ripe as a physical taking at this stage; taking not determined yet. |
| How should damages be measured and when does the takings claim accrue? | Use safe yield differential (1959 criteria vs. biological-opinion criteria) over 36-year cycle; include fish-screen losses. | Safe yield is not a proper metric; damages require actual delivery reductions; accrual occurs when harm is present. | Damage accrues only when actual reduced beneficial use occurs; safe yield-based damages must show present injury, not mere potential. |
| Is Casitas’ takings claim ripe given potential future events (e.g., SWRCB actions, drought mitigations)? | Historical and prospective harms may occur; delays or mitigation could still yield compensation. | Future changes (like SWRCB decisions) could render claim non-viable; not ripe until actual harm occurs. | Takings claim is not ripe; no present, compensable injury demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucas v. S. C. Coastal Comm’n, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (background principles define the limits of takings)
- National Audubon Soc’y v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (Cal. 1983) (public trust and water rights interplay; balancing approaches)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (essential nexus test for land-use exactions)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) (rough proportionality test for exactions)
- Northwest Louisiana Fish & Game Preserve Comm’n v. United States, 446 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (accrual of takings claims for future harms; ripeness requires present injury)
- Cloutier v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 326 (1990) (ripeness; no taking where no actual damages yet)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (per se physical taking tied to government’s active diversion)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 100 (2007) (trial court ruling denying regulatory taking; background principles discussed)