Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4067
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Casitas operates the Ventura River Project (owned by BOR) providing water to Ventura County customers; Casitas sued in 2005 alleging a Fifth Amendment taking due to operating criteria on the Project.
- 1976 Contract and 1956 Construction preceded Operation; Casitas has a license from SWRCB allowing diversion up to 107,800 acre-feet/year and up to 28,500 acre-feet/year for beneficial use.
- NMFS listed West Coast steelhead as endangered (1997) and issued a biological opinion (2003) requiring a fish ladder and other measures; Casitas implemented the Robles fish ladder (2004) amid ESA staying liability.
- District built the fish ladder upon which water was diverted away from the Robles-Casitas Canal, reducing Casitas’ water supply, triggering a takings analysis.
- Court of Federal Claims initially held the contract claim non-recoverable and took up the takings claim; the Federal Circuit reversed in part and remanded for a physical takings analysis.
- On remand, the trial court held the takings claim not ripe since Casitas had not shown an actual reduction in water deliveries; Casitas appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Casitas’ property interest under California law | Casitas has a right to divert 107,800 af/yr and store 28,500 af/yr; license tied to beneficial use. | Beneficial use is the sole compensable right; diversion alone isn’t a compensable right; license cap limits rights. | Casitas’ rights are limited to beneficial use; no separate right to divert 107,800 af/yr beyond beneficial use. |
| Accrual of takings claim | A physical taking occurred when water was diverted to the fish ladder; claim accrued at diversion. | Accrual requires actual injury to beneficial use; no such injury yet. | Takings claim accrues only upon actual encroachment on beneficial use; currently unripe. |
| Whether the case involves a physical vs regulatory taking | The government physically diverted water to the fish ladder; thus a physical taking. | At summary judgment stage, the actions were treated as regulatory; no physical taking proved. | Remand required physical taking analysis; court ultimately held no current physical taking. |
| Contract-based taking theory | Article 4 of the 1956 Contract promises perpetual right to use water; taking occurs when water is appropriated. | Waived on appeal; not adequately raised below. | Contract-based taking argument waived; affirmed dismissal on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 102 F. Cl. 443 (2011) (takings ripe analysis under California law; physical vs regulatory discussion; later remand)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (initial takings appeal; physical takings rubric guidance)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc discussion; scope of water rights; supplementary analysis)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, Casitas III (543 F.3d 1276) (2008) (reversal of summary judgment on taking; remand for full analysis)
- Estate of Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (beneficial-use limitation governs compensable water rights; accrual context)