Background
The plaintiffs own or operate property along the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers in Illinois and Kentucky. Although their land historically experienced seasonal winter and spring flooding, they alleged that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ river-management activities—including dredging, river-training structures, and construction of the Olmstead Locks and Dam—caused more extensive, frequent, and prolonged flooding, including flooding into July. They claimed that this new pattern amounted to an uncompensated taking of property and flowage easements under the Fifth Amendment.
The plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims in July 2021. After they amended their complaint to identify July flooding in 2013, 2015, and 2019, the government submitted decades of hydrograph data disputing that July flooding was new. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a new flooding pattern emerged—and therefore stabilized—within the applicable limitations period. It dismissed the amended complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed. Jurisdictional fact findings are reviewed for clear error, and the plaintiffs did not establish that the trial court clearly erred in interpreting the hydrological evidence. The trial court permissibly found, among other things, that July flooding on Gary Angelly’s property in 2013 and 2015 coincided with relatively little flooding in May or June and that unusually wet years did not necessarily demonstrate a new pattern attributable to the Corps, particularly given evidence of a broader wet climatic cycle.
The plaintiffs offered a competing interpretation of the data but did not identify flawed assumptions or deficient evidence underlying the trial court’s findings. Because two permissible views of the evidence existed, the trial court’s choice between them was not clearly erroneous. The appellate court therefore upheld the determination that the plaintiffs failed to prove a relevant new flooding pattern arose during the limitations period. It did not reach the separate question whether the amended complaint described the alleged pattern with sufficient specificity.
Because the dismissal was jurisdictional under RCFC 12(b)(1), it was without prejudice. The court noted that the plaintiffs may refile if they later obtain facts or data indicating that a new flooding pattern stabilized within a relevant limitations period.
Key Takeaways
- Property owners invoking the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction must prove disputed jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A competing interpretation of hydrological data does not establish clear error when the trial court’s interpretation is also permissible.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving the plaintiffs free to refile if new evidence supports timely stabilization of a new flooding pattern.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential decision illustrates the evidentiary burden facing landowners who allege a gradual or recurring flooding taking. When timeliness depends on when a new flooding pattern stabilized, allegations of unusually severe or late-season floods may be insufficient if long-term data and climatic variation permit the trial court to find that no distinct new pattern emerged.
It also underscores the deference appellate courts give trial-level jurisdictional fact findings. Plaintiffs challenging such findings must do more than offer another plausible reading of the record; they must demonstrate clear error.