Dekalb County, Georgia v. United States
108 Fed. Cl. 681
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- DeKalb County sues the United States and related Federal Facilities for unpaid stormwater management charges under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (Tucker Act).
- Plaintiff seeks damages for charges assessed 2005–2010 on federal properties and seeks to recover pre‑2011 charges within the preamendment scope of §1323.
- County adopted a 2003–2004 stormwater ordinance creating a county stormwater utility with fees funded into an enterprise fund; charges apply to developed property, not undeveloped land.
- Charges are billed to federal facilities via a County tax‑collector mechanism and may be credited up to 40%; revenue funds the stormwater system serving the public generally.
- The 1972 CWA provided §1323; 1977 amendments broadened reach but did not unambiguously waive immunity from state taxes; 2011 amendments added a clear, retroactive waiver for certain charges described as reasonable service charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of pre‑2011 claims | Counts accrual began when services were rendered; invoices in 2005 triggered timely claims for 2005 charges. | §2501 six‑year clock bars claims for charges billed before nov 14, 2005; continuing claims doctrine does not toll for pre‑2005. | Pre‑Nov 14, 2005 claims are untimely and dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(1). |
| Whether §1323(a) is a money‑mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction | §1323(a) requires federal facilities to pay reasonable service charges; this can support a money‑mandating claim. | §1323 pre‑2011 did not unambiguously waive immunity from taxes; need separate analysis for scope. | §1323(a) can be money‑mandating for timely claims, but pre‑2011 scope did not cover the disputed charges; jurisdiction exists only for timely claims and on the merits. |
| Are the charges taxes or fees, and does retroactive 2011 amendment apply | Charges are fees; 2011 amendment clarifies that reasonable service charges include stormwater charges and can be retroactive. | Charges are taxes; pre‑2011 §1323 did not waive immunity from taxes; 2011 amendment cannot be retroactive absent clear intent. | Charges are taxes; §1323 pre‑2011 did not unambiguously waive immunity from state/local taxes; 2011 amendment cannot be retroactively applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978) (test for reasonableness of federal taxes on state property; not applicable to fee vs tax distinction here)
- San Juan Cellular Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission, 967 F.2d 683 (1st Cir. 1992) (three‑part test distinguishing taxes from fees and focusing on entity imposing, class of payers, and use of revenues)
- United States v. Renton, 2012 WL 1903429 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (discussed retroactivity/clarification of 1323 amendment; distinguished from the instant case)
- Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (accrual and jurisdictional analysis for six‑year limitations under §2501)
- Cooper v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1448 (2012) (strict construction of sovereign immunity waivers; textual clarity required)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Tucker Act requires a money‑mandating source of substantive law; not a stand‑alone cause of action)
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (use of shall as money‑mandating indicator)