105 Fed. Cl. 760
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Plaintiffs own parcels in Chino, CA within the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin and allege the government exercised a physical flowage easement by elevating flood control elevations.
- Flowage easements were condemned in 1942 and 1945 to an elevation of 556 feet, with no alleged actual flooding by the government to date.
- A flood-control project (the Project) began in 1976 and would raise the inundation line to 566 feet; Phase I (dam and reservoir) completed circa 2008.
- Phase II contemplates upgrading title from easement to fee and acquiring additional property interests; Phase III details are unclear and not completed.
- Between 1993 and 2008, Orange County entities acquired numerous parcels around Plaintiffs’ property; offers to purchase were made but rejected.
- The City of Chino amended zoning and planning to reflect the 566-foot line, limiting use of parts of Plaintiffs’ land, ostensibly to maintain eligibility for flood insurance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs state a valid physical takings claim | Hurley permits a taking by future easement without actual flooding | No flood or permanent invasion; apprehension of future flooding insufficient | Plaintiffs fail to state a take; no actual or permanent invasion shown |
| Whether Hurley, Sponenbarger, and Danforth support a pre-flooding taking | Contemplation and construction of the Project constitutes a taking | Apprehension of future flooding and non-completed phase do not prove a taking | Pre-flooding apprehension alone does not yield a taking |
| How Ridge Line analysis applies to alleged flooding | Repeated mitigation actions create a permanent taking | No repeated, inevitable overflows; no permanent invasion | Ridge Line criteria not satisfied; no taking |
| Whether claims regarding maps, zoning, or due process claims confer relief in this court | Map of Reservation and zoning actions reflect a taking or due process violation | These do not establish a compensable taking or valid due process claim | No compensable takings or due process claim; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1939) (apprehension of future flooding is not a taking without actual flooding)
- Sponenbarger v. United States, 308 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1939) (apprehension of future flooding insufficient for taking)
- Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1932) (remedy for taking discussed; not taking in advance of taking)
- Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (two-prong test: predictability of effects and sufficiency of invasions for takings)
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (permanent invasion or recurring overflows may satisfy takings; standards applied)
- Fromme v. United States, 188 Ct.Cl. 1112 (Ct. Cl. 1969) (flooding every so often does not automatically constitute a taking)
- Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1939) (value changes from project do not equal a taking)
- Bryant v. United States, 216 Ct.Cl. 409 (Ct. Cl. 1978) (evidence of infrequent flooding not enough for taking)
- Sponenbarger v. United States, 308 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1939) (apprehension of future flooding not a taking)