Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Property

PropertyTakings ClauseTemporary floodingTakings Clausetemporary takingfloodingphysical invasionforeseeability

Facts

From 1993 through 2000, the Army Corps of Engineers annually approved deviations from its dam-release manual that slowed fall releases and extended higher releases into the following spring and summer. The Commission alleged that these deviations caused sustained growing-season flooding in its wildlife management area, damaging timber and disrupting the land's ordinary use. The Court of Federal Claims found that the resulting flooding was substantially greater than historical patterns, persisted over six consecutive years, and cumulatively destroyed or degraded more than 18 million board feet of timber. The Federal Circuit nevertheless held that no taking could exist because the flooding was temporary rather than permanent or inevitably recurring.

Issue

Whether government-induced flood invasions that are repetitive but temporary in duration are categorically exempt from Takings Clause liability. More specifically, must flooding be permanent or inevitably recurring before it can constitute a compensable taking?

Rule

Recurrent government-induced flooding, even if finite in duration, is not categorically exempt from Takings Clause liability. Temporary flooding claims must be assessed under a case-specific factual inquiry in which time is one factor, along with the degree to which the invasion was intended or foreseeable, the character of the land, the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the severity of the interference.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Missouri, the Midvale Water Authority temporarily changed gate operations at a public reservoir for three spring seasons to protect a downstream marina district. The altered releases repeatedly inundated Lena Ortiz's pecan orchard during the growing season, killing young trees and preventing harvests, but the agency later returned to its prior operating plan.

If the Authority argues that no taking can exist because the flooding ended after three years and never became permanent, which is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority rejected any blanket rule that temporary flooding cannot be a taking. Recurrent government-induced flooding, even if finite in duration, may be compensable. The proper approach is a case-specific inquiry rather than a categorical requirement of permanence or inevitable recurrence.