Ministerio Roca Solida, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 140

Background

Ministerio Roca Solida ("Solid Rock"), a Nevada church, purchased a 40‑acre parcel within Ash Meadows NWR in 2006 and alleges vested spring water rights and use for baptisms and a recreational pond.
In August 2010 FWS completed a diversion dam/channel that Solid Rock says routed its spring water off the parcel, depriving it of water rights and pond water, and was engineered without capacity for precipitation runoff.
Solid Rock alleges repeated flooding after rain events (2010–2016) caused by the diversion project, damaging land, structures, animals, and access roads, and impairing camp operations.
Solid Rock sued previously in district court and filed in the Court of Federal Claims; earlier CFC suit was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 and affirmed by the Federal Circuit; the district suit was later dismissed without prejudice, and Solid Rock filed the present takings/due process suit in the CFC.
Claims: (1) Fifth Amendment taking of vested water rights; (2) taking of real and personal property due to flooding/erosion; (3) Fifth Amendment Due Process violations (arbitrary/capricious and violations of law). Relief sought: >$3 million compensation, declaration of taking, restoration, and damages.
Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: it argued takings claims are actually tort/ultra vires and that the Due Process claim is not money‑mandating.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CFC has Tucker Act jurisdiction over Solid Rock's takings claims	Solid Rock: diversion and resulting flooding constitute a compensable taking of water rights and property; seeks money damages under Fifth Amendment	United States: claims are premised on illegal/negligent/ultra vires conduct (tort), not an "authorized" government action required for a Takings Clause claim	CFC denied dismissal as to takings claims; jurisdiction exists because allegations support a nonfrivolous takings theory (authorized-but-unlawful vs. unauthorized distinction)
Whether alleged illegality of the project defeats Takings Clause relief	Solid Rock: even if acts were unlawful, officials may have acted within authority so a taking claim remains viable	United States: unlawful conduct means the action was unauthorized and thus not compensable as a taking	Court held illegality does not automatically negate authorization; ultra vires vs. unauthorized distinction controls, so takings claims survive jurisdictional challenge
Whether facts that could also support tort claims bar Tucker Act jurisdiction	Solid Rock: parallel tort allegations do not preclude relief under the Takings Clause	United States: the complaint sounds in tort rather than a taking, so CFC lacks jurisdiction	Court held coexisting tort theories do not defeat a takings claim if predicates for a traditional taking are sufficiently alleged
Whether CFC has jurisdiction over the Fifth Amendment Due Process claim	Solid Rock: had to dismiss district claims to preserve takings suit; equitable concerns justify retention of due process claim	United States: Due Process Clause is not money‑mandating; CFC lacks jurisdiction	CFC granted dismissal of the due process claim without prejudice; Due Process is not money‑mandating and cannot be heard in CFC

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 508 U.S. 200 (recognizing § 1500 bars CFC jurisdiction when a related suit is pending elsewhere)
Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishes physical takings from torts; two‑part inquiry on intent/authorized activity and nature/magnitude of invasion)
Del‑Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United States, 146 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.) (unauthorized conduct vs. authorized-but‑unlawful; ultra vires conduct does not always preclude a taking)
Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires an independent money‑mandating source such as the Constitution for CFC jurisdiction)
Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.) (nonfrivolous takings claim establishes Tucker Act jurisdiction)
Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States, 247 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (uncompensated takings and unlawful government action are separate causes of action)
Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir.) (Due Process Clause is not money‑mandating, limiting CFC jurisdiction)