Hampton v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
2016 IL 119861
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Class of homeowners in Bellwood, Hillside, and Westchester sued the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (the District) after storm-related flooding they allege resulted from District actions (closing locks, discharging/pumping stormwater, and maintenance activities) during a July 2010 rain event.
- Plaintiffs pleaded an Illinois takings-clause claim (private property “taken or damaged” without just compensation) asserting physical invasion/ deprivation of use and, alternatively, a claim for damage to property.
- The District moved to dismiss, arguing People ex rel. Pratt v. Rosenfield established that temporary flooding can never be a compensable taking under Illinois law; plaintiffs relied on Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (U.S. Sup. Ct.) which held temporary government-induced flooding may be compensable under the federal Takings Clause.
- The circuit court certified the question whether Arkansas Game & Fish overruled Pratt; the appellate court answered yes (to the extent Pratt held temporary flooding could never be a taking) and remanded for merits; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
- The Illinois Supreme Court held the Illinois and federal takings clauses define “taking” the same way (though Illinois also separately allows compensation for property “damaged”), adopted the analytical framework from Arkansas Game & Fish for temporary flooding claims, concluded Pratt did not establish a categorical bar, and reversed the appellate court’s judgment to allow amendment and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas Game & Fish overruled Pratt so that temporary flooding can be a taking under Illinois law | Arkansas Game & Fish establishes temporary flooding can be a taking; Pratt’s rule should not bar plaintiffs | Pratt established a categorical rule that temporary flooding is not a taking; federal case cannot overrule Illinois precedent | The Court: federal decisions are relevant under Illinois’s limited lockstep doctrine; Pratt did not announce a blanket rule; Arkansas Game & Fish’s approach is consistent and should inform Illinois law |
| Whether the Illinois takings clause is synonymous with the federal Takings Clause for defining a “taking” | A taking under Illinois should follow federal interpretation for the term "taking" | Illinois clause differs (includes "damaged" and jury requirement), so it could be broader for takings too | Held: "Taking" is defined the same under both clauses; Illinois differs only by providing a separate remedy for property "damaged" |
| Whether plaintiffs’ amended complaint plausibly alleges a compensable taking | Plaintiffs allege physical invasion, deprivation of use, and damage from District actions | District says allegations are temporary, not recurring or sufficiently severe to be a taking; dismissal appropriate | Held: Complaint fails to plead facts (duration, severity, intent/foreseeability, concrete interference) sufficient to state a taking; remand for opportunity to amend |
| Whether Pratt must be overruled or modified in light of Arkansas Game & Fish | Plaintiffs urge adoption of Arkansas factors; effectively overrule Pratt | District defends Pratt as controlling Illinois precedent | Held: Pratt is not inconsistent—Pratt did not establish a categorical exception—but to the extent some appellate decisions applied a blanket rule (e.g., Luperini), they are overruled; Illinois adopts Arkansas Game & Fish factors for temporary flooding takings analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Pratt v. Rosenfield, 399 Ill. 247 (Ill. 1948) (state supreme court decision addressing temporary flooding and takings under Illinois Constitution)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2012) (U.S. Supreme Court holding government-induced temporary flooding may be compensable and articulating factors for analysis)
- Forest Preserve Dist. v. West Suburban Bank, 161 Ill. 2d 448 (Ill. 1994) (discussing state/federal takings analysis alignment)
- Horn v. City of Chicago, 403 Ill. 549 (Ill. 1949) (physical invasion by water can constitute a taking if it destroys or impairs usefulness)
- Kane v. City of Chicago, 392 Ill. 172 (Ill. 1945) (burden on owner to prove damages when asserting compensation for governmental damage)
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. 166 (U.S. 1871) (early federal case recognizing government-induced flooding can constitute a taking)
- United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1917) (seasonal/recurring flooding can constitute a taking)
- United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1946) (direct and immediate interference with land use can support a takings claim)
- Luperini v. County of Du Page, 265 Ill. App. 3d 84 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (prior appellate panel summarized Pratt as barring temporary-flooding takings; to the extent it established a blanket rule, it is overruled)