Background
The Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Emsworth Locks and Dams on the Ohio River near Pittsburgh between 1919 and 1922, converted the dams to gated structures by 1938, and later rehabilitated them. Neville Chemical Company owns four submerged parcels upriver of the dams, including land on which the back-channel dam sits.
Neville alleged that the dam’s physical occupation and its continued operation, which allegedly flooded and rendered the parcels unusable, effected Fifth Amendment takings. After the case was removed from Pennsylvania state court and transferred to the Court of Federal Claims, the government moved to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 2501’s six-year limitations period.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Edward H. Meyers granted the government’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, while deferring judgment and granting Neville 45 days to amend. The physical-occupation claim failed because Neville did not own the parcels when the Corps constructed and reconfigured the back-channel dam; the undisputed deeds showed Neville acquired interests no earlier than 1947, after the dam was operating.
The court also held that Neville had not carried its burden to establish jurisdiction over its flooding claim. Although the government’s 1993 satellite image alone did not prove when flooding stabilized, Neville alleged no facts identifying when stabilization occurred or otherwise showing that a permanent taking became clear within six years before suit. A recent appraisal revealing the flooding did not establish timely accrual because the relevant inquiry is constructive knowledge of a permanent taking, not actual discovery.
Key Takeaways
- A property owner cannot pursue a physical-takings claim based on a government occupation that occurred before the owner acquired the property.
- For gradual-flooding claims, stabilization concerns when a permanent taking became clear, not when the owner learned of the condition or determined the full damages.
- The dismissal is without immediate final judgment: Neville may amend by October 5, 2026, to allege facts supporting timely stabilization.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the jurisdictional force of § 2501 in Court of Federal Claims takings litigation. Plaintiffs invoking the stabilization doctrine must plead facts supporting when the alleged flooding became a permanent taking; an assertion of recently discovering submerged property is insufficient.