Flooding cases involving Fifth Amendment takings claims almost always present complex factual and constitutional issues. One such case, Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, involves nearly 400 landowners, business owners, and farmers in six states along the Missouri River and about $8 million in damages (just compensation and interest). Ideker Farms now asserts a categorical, physical taking of their property as a permanent flowage easement, caused by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 2004 policy change to deprioritize flood control in favor returning the Missouri River to a more natural state to protect wildlife and preserve the environment.
On the first appeal to the Federal Circuit, the court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the court had erred in applying the temporary flooding test articulated in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States. On the case’s second trip to the Federal Circuit, the court of appeals affirmed the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ liability determination and the $8 million judgment entered in favor of Ideker Farms. The Federal Circuit did, however, vacate the Court of Federal Claims’ blanket determination that claims related to crop losses and a related issue and remanded those issues to the trial for further consideration.
On remand, the Government sought a judgement on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), asking the court to summarily terminate all plaintiffs with taking claims based on fewer than three floods. The trial court described the Government’s argument as essentially a proverbial approach: “Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Thrice might be a pattern.”
The CFC rejected this argument, explaining:
The Court rejects defendant’s oversimplification of the law in this complex area and concomitant effort to establish a bright-line rule of jurisdictional expediency at the expense of potentially viable Fifth Amendment claims.
Read Judge Bonilla’s full decision here.
