Legal News

Supreme Court Scrutinizes Government Liability in Federally Created Floods
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the degree of liability of the federal government and the extent to which it must pay damages for temporarily flooding downstream property owners when it releases water from a dam. The case that involves damage done to an Arkansas wildlife preserve brings focus upon the central question as to when, government activity that affects private property, requires payment to a landowner.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it mandatory for governments to compensate owners of public property that it ‘takes’ for public purposes. Does temporary flooding in this case constitute ‘taking’ by the government? Given that the property owners had no option but to suffer damages to the property caused by government action, that was deliberate, though not malicious, should they receive compensation, and if so, then how much?

The instant case before the Supreme Court involved that of water released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from the Clearwater Dam in Missouri causing the flooding of the Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife Management Area, which is about 185 km downstream of the dam.


The Arkansas Game & Fish Commission claimed that such releases of water from the Clearwater dam between 1993 and 1998 led to six years of flooding and the death or weakening of almost 18 million board feet of timber, making the task of operating the wildlife reserve extremely difficult.

Initially, a federal court of claims awarded $5.6 million for the lost timber and $176,428 to regenerate a forestry habitat. However, the award was overturned by the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which said flooding was temporary, and did not require compensation as a ‘taking.’

Chief Justice John Roberts commented, “It’s a different case when they go in with the chainsaw than when they go in with the water.”

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the 9-judge panel, which, if tied 4-4, would leave the question effectively undecided.


Interesting Legal Sites You May Like




Search Now

Senior Land Use Attorney with experience

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office of our client seeks senior land use attorney with 7+ years of experience. The c...

Apply Now

Immigration Attorney with portable business


McLean office is seeking an immigration attorney with $500,000+ in portable business.

Apply Now

Employment Attorney with 3+ years of wage and hour litigation experience

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Los Angeles office of our client seeks employment attorney with 3+ years of experience in wage and h...

Apply Now

Commercial Litigation Attorney with some experience


Marlton office of our client seeks commercial litigation attorney with experience. A prior judicial ...

Apply Now


Associate Attorney

USA-TX-Fort Worth

Associate litigation attorney sought by AV-rated downtown Fort Worth law firm. Candidates must have ...

Apply now

Litigation Attorney

USA-TX-Fort Worth

Associate litigation attorney sought by AV-rated downtown Fort Worth law firm. Candidates must have ...

Apply now

Staff Attorney

USA-NY-New York City

The Staff Attorney, who will be based in New York City (Downtown Manhattan and/or Bronx office), wil...

Apply now

Staff Attorney IOI


Will carry a caseload of at least 50 active cases, consisting of complex immigration and removal def...

Apply now

Most Popular


To Top