Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
543 F.3d 1276 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A government action that physically diverts a portion of a party's water right for a public purpose, even if compelled by a regulation like the Endangered Species Act, is analyzed as a potential physical taking rather than a regulatory taking.

Facts:

In 1956, the United States and Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas) entered into a contract for the U.S. to build the Ventura River Project, which granted Casitas the 'perpetual right to use all water that becomes available through the construction and operation of the Project.'
The Project, completed in 1959, includes the Robles Diversion Dam and the Robles-Casitas Canal, which diverts water from the Ventura River into the canal to be stored in Lake Casitas.
In 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the West Coast steelhead trout, located in the Project's watershed, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
To comply with the ESA, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) sought a biological opinion from NMFS.
In 2003, the BOR directed Casitas to comply with the biological opinion, which required Casitas to construct a fish ladder at the Robles Diversion Dam.
The operation of the new fish ladder required physically diverting a certain amount of water away from the Robles-Casitas Canal and back toward the river system, resulting in a permanent loss of water for Casitas.
Casitas constructed the fish ladder and diverted the water under protest.

Procedural Posture:

Casitas Municipal Water District filed suit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging breach of contract and a compensable Fifth Amendment taking.
The government moved for summary judgment on both claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the government on the contract claim, holding the fish ladder was an 'operation and maintenance' cost and that the sovereign acts doctrine applied.
The trial court also granted partial summary judgment for the government on the takings claim, ruling that the claim must be analyzed under the regulatory takings framework of Penn Central.
Casitas conceded it could not prevail under a regulatory takings analysis, leading the trial court to dismiss the complaint and enter final judgment for the United States.
Casitas, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the United States as appellee.

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 the government's requirement that a water district divert water from its project into a fish ladder to protect an endangered species constitute a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, rather than a regulatory taking?

Opinions:

Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge.

Yes, the government's requirement that Casitas divert water from its project constitutes a potential physical taking, not a regulatory taking. The character of the government's action was not a mere restriction on use, but an active physical appropriation of Casitas's property right for a public purpose. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in cases like International Paper and Dugan, the court reasoned that when the government causes water to which a party has a right to be physically diverted away from that party's use, it constitutes a physical appropriation. The government admitted that its directive caused water that would have been in the Robles-Casitas Canal to be diverted into the fish ladder. This is distinct from a regulatory restriction, like the moratorium in Tahoe-Sierra, because the diverted water is permanently lost to Casitas. The fact that the water was used for an environmental purpose (preserving an endangered species) does not change the analysis, as this constitutes a public use for which compensation may be required.

Dissenting - Mayer, Circuit Judge.

No, the government's action should be analyzed as a regulatory taking, not a physical taking. The majority's holding blurs the critical distinction between physical appropriations and regulatory use restrictions reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Tahoe-Sierra. The government did not invade, seize, or convert Casitas's property for its own proprietary or consumptive use, as it did in the cases cited by the majority. Instead, it imposed a regulatory restriction on Casitas's use of a natural resource to promote the common good—preventing a public harm by protecting an endangered species. This is a classic regulatory action that should be analyzed under the Penn Central framework. Labeling this a physical taking elevates form over substance and creates a perverse incentive for parties to frame their regulatory compliance in a way that triggers a per se takings claim.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the boundary between physical and regulatory takings concerning water rights and environmental law. By classifying an ESA-mandated diversion as a potential physical taking, the court lowers the bar for property owners to seek compensation, as physical takings are subject to a per se analysis rather than the difficult-to-meet Penn Central balancing test for regulatory takings. This precedent increases the potential financial liability for the government when implementing environmental protections that require active rerouting of water resources. The decision creates a doctrinal split with other courts that have viewed similar ESA restrictions as regulatory, potentially setting the stage for Supreme Court review on how the Takings Clause applies to water rights in the context of modern environmental regulation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"