Background
Six Louisiana landowners alleged that the federal government’s construction, operation, and maintenance of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet permanently damaged their marshlands through erosion, saltwater intrusion, and related ecological changes. They sought just compensation under the Fifth Amendment and also asserted contract claims based on servitudes originally granted to the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and later assigned to the United States.
The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims fell outside the Court of Federal Claims’ six-year limitations period and failed on the merits. The landowners cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability. Earlier rulings had divided the affected property into seven categories and left unresolved whether government mitigation and restoration activity created “justifiable uncertainty” about the permanence of the alleged takings, thereby delaying accrual.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government summary judgment on the takings claims involving category four because the landowners did not present sufficient evidence of proposed or completed remediation projects to create a genuine dispute over justifiable uncertainty. For categories one, two, three, six, and seven, however, evidence of remediation efforts could support a finding that landowners remained justifiably uncertain about whether the damage was permanent. Those limitations questions could not be resolved on summary judgment and require factual development at trial.
The court rejected the landowners’ contract claims. It held that they lacked contractual privity with the United States and that any alleged breach accrued more than six years before each plaintiff sued. The servitudes also released claims for damage to the covered land caused by normal construction, maintenance, and operation of the outlet; claims outside that release would not supply a contract-based ground for Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction. The court denied the landowners’ cross-motion in full and directed the parties to propose a schedule for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Most remaining takings claims survived summary judgment because the record left factual disputes about whether government remediation activity justifiably delayed accrual.
- Category-four takings claims failed because the landowners did not identify sufficient remediation evidence to create a triable limitations issue.
- The contract claims failed for lack of privity and untimeliness, with the servitudes’ releases providing an additional barrier to claims for ordinary MRGO-related damage within the easement areas.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how fact-intensive accrual can be when an alleged taking results from gradual environmental processes and the government simultaneously proposes or undertakes mitigation. Evidence that remediation may avert permanent loss can postpone a definitive limitations ruling even when the underlying damage began decades earlier.
The opinion also underscores that an assignment of a servitude to the federal government does not necessarily establish the privity required for a Tucker Act contract claim, and that release language in property agreements can sharply limit later recovery theories.