Background
Jeffrey Essmann and other plaintiffs own farmland along Montana’s Bighorn River downstream from the Yellowtail Dam and Yellowtail Afterbay Dam, which are jointly managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. They alleged that the government’s flood-control commitments induced their purchases and development of the downstream properties.
In June 2023, the government allegedly released a significant amount of water rapidly from the dam system. The landowners alleged that the resulting flooding submerged their land for a substantial period, washed away soil, destroyed crops and fixtures, changed the river’s course, and left portions of formerly arable land permanently under the river. They sought just compensation for an alleged taking of a flowage easement.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Stephen S. Schwartz granted plaintiffs leave to file their amended complaint and denied the government’s motion to dismiss. The proposed amendment was not futile because it plausibly alleged a Fifth Amendment flooding taking.
The court rejected the government’s argument that a temporary government-induced flood must be recurrent, either in the future or in the past, to qualify as a taking. Under the fact-specific framework for temporary flooding, recurrence is relevant but not a categorical prerequisite. A one-time flood can support a takings claim depending on its foreseeability, duration, severity, impact on the land, and the owners’ reasonable investment-backed expectations.
Accepting the allegations as true at the pleading stage, the court found it plausible that the June 2023 release caused a sufficiently serious invasion. The alleged permanent rerouting of the river and permanent submergence of previously usable land could also support an inference of a permanent occupation.
Key Takeaways
- A single episode of government-induced flooding can potentially constitute a compensable taking.
- Recurring flooding is not an absolute pleading requirement for a temporary-flooding takings claim.
- Permanent damage matters where it bears on the severity of the interference or suggests a permanent occupation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that flooding-takings claims turn on a practical, fact-intensive inquiry rather than a bright-line recurrence rule. Landowners need not allege repeated inundation to survive dismissal when they plausibly allege a foreseeable government-caused flood with substantial and lasting effects.