Army Corps Actions Caused Missouri River Flooding, Judge Rules
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has found the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' management of the Missouri River caused regular flooding, a liability finding that sets the stage for a trial over what plaintiffs' counsel estimated as $300 million in damages.
March 14, 2018 at 05:30 PM
4 minute read
Benjamin Brown with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has found the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' management of the Missouri River caused regular flooding, a liability finding that sets the stage for a trial over what plaintiffs' counsel estimated as $300 million in damages.
Tuesday's ruling by U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Nancy Firestone found that actions made by the Corps—rather than just nature—caused recurrent flooding of the Missouri River during five years that fell between 2007 and 2014. The ruling is a rare and significant decision against the U.S. Corp of Engineers, which a different Court of Federal Claims judge found in 2015 was liable for some of the Hurricane Katrina damage in New Orleans.
“This is one of the largest and most sweeping takings holdings in United States history—Katrina probably being the other one,” said Benjamin Brown, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Washington, D.C. “In this corner of the law, this is pretty monumental.”
Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the Army Corps of Engineers, declined to comment beyond stating that government lawyers were reviewing the ruling.
The Missouri River, once dubbed the “Big Muddy,” is one of the “most engineered rivers in the world,” Brown said. Under the Flood Control Act, the Army Corps constructed dams and reservoirs so that farmers and other business owners could develop land near the river.
But the changes impacted the native habitat of several species of birds and fish. Following a raft of lawsuits, including those brought under the Endangered Species Act, a federal judge in 2004 ordered the Corps to make changes to its management of the Missouri River.
A decade later, more than 370 property owners along the Missouri River filed suit, claiming that the Army Corps' changes brought on flooding that destroyed their land. They alleged that the Corps had violated the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which bars the federal government from taking private property without compensation.
“They maintained that since this was foreseeable, the Corps had anticipated that conforming with this biological opinion was going to lead to more flooding, and was leading to more flooding, and threatening their livelihood,” Brown said. “The appropriate response and what the Fifth Amendment dictates is the taxpayers all share the costs of this compliance with the Endangered Species Act rather than only those who live on the river.”
The trial involved plaintiffs with 44 representative properties. Firestone dismissed claims involving 16 of those properties, and she found the Corps was not liable for flooding that occurred in 2011.
But plaintiffs lawyers said the ruling imposed liability on the Corps for flooding in four states. In a statement, Polsinelli's R. Dan Boulware, a shareholder in St. Joseph, Missouri, who was lead counsel in the case, called on Congress to “act soon to restore flood control to a higher priority as it was during the last century.” Congress previously has introduced bills to address flooding of the Missouri River.
In addition to Brown and Boulware, the plaintiffs team involved Cohen Milstein partner Laura Alexander and three other shareholders from Polsinelli—Edwin Smith, Seth Wright and R. Todd Ehlert—and Sharon Kennedy, who is of counsel in Kansas City, Missouri.
The first phase of the trial was to determine whether the Corps was liable. A second phase, set to begin this fall, will determine damages. Brown said plaintiffs would be seeking around $300 million.
The trial lasted 63 days and took place in Kansas City, Missouri, and Washington, D.C. It involved more than 95 witnesses, 100 depositions and more than 20 million documents.
“It was quite an undertaking,” Brown said, joking that “my kids viewed it as the year without dad.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCuomo Accuser Drops Federal Lawsuit Against Ex-Governor
Atkins Likely to Bring Pro-Business, Light Regulatory Touch to SEC, Say Agency Observers
'Stake Out My Space': Attorneys, Law Professors Flock from X to Bluesky
Trending Stories
- 1Enforceable Agreement To Arbitrate; Breach of Settlement Stipulation; Establishing Right to Succession: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 2So, You Want to Be a Mediator: How to Start a Mediation Practice
- 3Suspected Shooter of UnitedHealthcare CEO Is Charged With Murder in New York. Now What?
- 4Compliance in the Peer-to-Peer Payment Landscape
- 5What To Do If ICE Comes to Your Business
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250