St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States
887 F.3d 1354
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (St. Bernard Parish and property owners) sued under the Tucker Act alleging Fifth Amendment takings from flood damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, blaming the Mississippi River–Gulf Outlet (MRGO) construction, operation, and failure to maintain it.
- MRGO (authorized 1956, completed 1968) is alleged to have increased salinity, caused wetlands loss, bank erosion, and a "funnel effect," increasing storm surge and flooding.
- Congress separately authorized the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project (LPV project) in 1965, constructing levees and floodwalls (including along MRGO banks) that reduced flood risk in the same area.
- The Claims Court found a temporary taking, relying heavily on government failures to maintain/modify MRGO and on a causal link between MRGO and increased storm surge; it awarded just compensation.
- On appeal the Federal Circuit held (1) takings liability cannot be premised on government inaction alone and (2) plaintiffs failed to prove causation because they did not compare actual flooding to the flooding that would have occurred considering the LPV levees and other risk-reducing government actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government inaction (failure to maintain/modify MRGO) can support a takings claim | MRGO failures (inaction) caused channel enlargement, wetlands loss, and increased storm surge, producing a taking | Takings require affirmative government action; liability cannot rest on inaction (tort remedy only) | Inaction alone cannot form the basis of a Fifth Amendment taking; reversed |
| Proper causation standard for takings based on government projects | Plaintiffs analyzed MRGO in isolation and equated MRGO effects to causation | Causation must compare actual harms to what would have occurred absent all government action and must account for risk-decreasing government projects (LPV) | Plaintiffs failed to prove causation because they ignored the LPV project and the totality of government action; reversed |
| Whether unrelated or separately authorized government benefits (LPV levees) may be considered in causation | LPV benefits are separate and should not defeat an MRGO-only causation analysis | If other government actions address the same risk, they must be included in causation analysis even if authorized separately | LPV levees (and other risk-decreasing actions) are directly related and must be considered in determining whether government action caused the injuries |
| Foreseeability / temporariness and compensation period | Plaintiffs argued harms were foreseeable and sought compensation until broader risk-reduction projects completed | Government disputed causation and timing; compensation depends on establishing taking and its duration | Court did not resolve foreseeability in plaintiffs’ favor because of failure of proof on causation; compensation award vacated by reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012) (temporary government-induced flooding can constitute a taking; causation and foreseeability principles)
- Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (takings require that invasion be the direct, natural, or probable result of government action)
- United States v. Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. 256 (1939) (no taking when broad flood control program overall reduces flood hazards and benefits the land)
- United States v. Archer, 241 U.S. 119 (1916) (plaintiff must show what would have occurred absent government action to prove causation)
- Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146 (1924) (relevance of whether land would have flooded absent the government canal)
- Accardi v. United States, 599 F.2d 423 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (no taking where plaintiffs failed to show additional flooding attributable to government dam)
- John B. Hardwicke Co. v. United States, 467 F.2d 488 (Ct. Cl. 1972) (consideration of net effect of multiple government flood-control actions)
- United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (1942) (benefits from the same project can offset compensation)
- Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (Takings Clause presupposes government action for a valid public purpose)
- Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (takings liability depends on authorized affirmative activity, not level of care)