Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States
568 U.S. 23 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Government-induced flooding, even if temporary in duration, is not categorically exempt from the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and may constitute a compensable taking depending on a fact-specific inquiry into the circumstances of the case.
Facts:
- The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (Commission) owns and manages the 23,000-acre Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife Management Area, a forested preserve with valuable hardwood timber.
- Upstream from this area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates the Clearwater Dam according to a Water Control Manual.
- From 1993 to 2000, the Corps annually approved planned deviations from the Manual to benefit downstream farmers, which involved slowing water releases during the fall.
- These slower fall releases caused water to accumulate behind the dam, requiring extended, higher-than-normal water releases during the spring and summer, which is the timber's growing season.
- The Commission repeatedly objected to these deviations between 1993 and 2000, warning the Corps that the extended flooding was harming the timber in the Management Area.
- The cumulative effect of these six consecutive years of prolonged, growing-season flooding destroyed or degraded more than 18 million board feet of timber and substantially altered the character of the terrain.
- In 2001, after testing the effects of the deviations and abandoning a plan to make them permanent, the Corps ceased the temporary deviations.
Procedural Posture:
- The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a court of first instance for claims against the federal government.
- After a trial, the Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the Commission, finding a temporary taking had occurred and awarded it $5.7 million.
- The United States, as the defendant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the intermediate appellate court.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding as a matter of law that government-induced flooding constitutes a taking only if it is a 'permanent or inevitably recurring' condition.
- The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, as the petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does government-induced flooding of private property, even if temporary and of a finite duration, constitute a taking of property for which just compensation is required under the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. Government-induced flooding, even if temporary, is not categorically exempt from Takings Clause liability and may constitute a compensable taking depending on the circumstances of the case. The Takings Clause is designed to bar the government from forcing individuals to bear public burdens that, in fairness, should be borne by the public. Precedent establishes both that government-induced flooding can be a taking and that temporary government actions can be compensable takings. There is no principled reason to create a blanket exception for temporary flooding. The government's reliance on language from Sanguinetti v. United States suggesting a taking requires a 'permanent invasion' is misplaced, as that language was descriptive of prior cases, not a prescriptive rule, and has been superseded by later jurisprudence recognizing temporary takings. Rather than applying a categorical rule, courts must assess claims of temporary takings by flooding based on a factual inquiry into the particular circumstances of each case.
Analysis:
This decision rejects a bright-line, categorical rule that would have shielded the government from liability for all temporary floodings, regardless of their foreseeability, duration, or severity. By doing so, the Court brings the analysis for temporary physical invasions in line with the fact-intensive, ad hoc balancing approach used for regulatory takings, as established in cases like Penn Central. The ruling increases the potential liability for government entities operating public works like dams and levees, requiring them to more carefully consider the downstream consequences of temporary operational changes on private property. It establishes that the temporary nature of a physical invasion is just one factor among many in the takings analysis, not a dispositive bar to a claim.
