Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 443 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Fifth Amendment takings claim for a government restriction on a usufructuary water right is not ripe until the restriction actually interferes with the owner's ability to put the water to beneficial use. A mere reduction in the ability to divert or store water does not trigger a ripe claim if the owner can still meet all existing and potential customer demand.
Facts:
- Casitas Municipal Water District ('Casitas') operates the Ventura River Project, diverting water from the river under a California state license to provide water to its customers.
- The license allowed Casitas to divert up to 107,800 acre-feet of water per year and put up to 28,500 acre-feet to beneficial use, originally requiring it to bypass the first 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) for downstream users.
- In 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service ('NMFS') listed the west coast steelhead trout as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- NMFS determined that Casitas's dam operations were harming the steelhead by impeding migration and dewatering parts of the river.
- After being threatened with a lawsuit by an environmental group, Cal Trout, for violating the ESA, Casitas began working on mitigation measures.
- Casitas, in consultation with federal agencies, designed and constructed a fish passage facility at its diversion dam.
- In a 2003 Biological Opinion, NMFS mandated new operating criteria for the facility, requiring Casitas to increase its bypass flows to as much as 50 cfs during migration seasons to ensure water for the fish ladder.
- This new requirement significantly reduced the amount of water Casitas was able to divert from the Ventura River into its reservoir.
Procedural Posture:
- Casitas Municipal Water District sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging breach of contract and a Fifth Amendment takings claim.
- The Court of Federal Claims (trial court) dismissed the contract claim and granted summary judgment to the government on the takings claim, which it had characterized as a regulatory taking.
- Casitas, the appellant, appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the contract claim but reversed the summary judgment on the takings claim, holding that the government's action should be analyzed as a physical taking.
- The Federal Circuit denied the government's petition for rehearing.
- The case was remanded to the Court of Federal Claims for a trial on the physical takings claim.
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 a Fifth Amendment physical takings claim for the appropriation of water rights become ripe for adjudication at the moment the government imposes restrictions on water diversion, even if those restrictions have not yet caused an actual shortfall in the water supplied for beneficial use?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiese, Judge.
No. A Fifth Amendment takings claim involving a usufructuary water right is not ripe until the government's action actually encroaches upon the holder's ability to put the water to beneficial use, such as delivering it to customers. The court reasoned that under California law, a water right is not ownership of the water itself but is a usufructuary right—the right to the beneficial use of the water. Therefore, a taking does not occur when diversion is merely limited, but only when that limitation actually prevents the beneficial use. Because Casitas had been able to meet all customer demands and had not turned away any prospective customers despite the reduced diversions, it had not yet suffered a present, compensable injury. The potential for a future shortfall is speculative and does not create a ripe claim. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Casitas to refile if and when its beneficial use is actually impacted.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction for the accrual of takings claims involving usufructuary water rights versus fee simple interests in land. By tying the injury to the actual impairment of 'beneficial use' rather than the initial government restriction on diversion, the court raises the bar for ripeness in such cases. This precedent requires water rights holders to wait until a tangible water shortage occurs before they can seek compensation, which can create significant uncertainty in long-term water supply planning. The ruling also narrowly construes the 'background principles' defense under Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, holding that general state doctrines like the public trust require a balancing of interests and do not automatically defeat a takings claim simply because a public resource is harmed.
Unlock the full brief for Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States