Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:23 AM

elleng (40,558 posts)

Supreme Court Rules Government May Be Liable for Flooding.

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:27 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Source: reuters/nyt

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the federal government may be required to pay damages when it releases water from a dam that causes temporary flooding for a property owner downstream.

The case addressed the politically charged issue of when government activity that affects private property constitutes a "taking" that requires payment to a landowner. Under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government must pay owners of private property that it takes for public purposes.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said temporary flooding of private land by the government is "not categorically exempt" from liability under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause.

There is "no solid grounding in precedent for setting flooding apart from all other government intrusions on property," Ginsburg wrote. . .

The Supreme Court cautioned that its ruling was not meant to "credit all, or even many, such claims." Rather, lower courts would have to weigh numerous factors in deciding whether to award landowners compensation for temporary flooding, including the degree to which the damage was intended or foreseeable, recurring or severe.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/12/04/us/04reuters-usa-court-flooding.html?hp

11 replies, 1462 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

11 replies	Author	Time	Post
Supreme Court Rules Government May Be Liable for Flooding. (Original post)	elleng	Dec 2012	OP
And if there wasn't a dam?	dbackjon	Dec 2012	#1
No government action.	elleng	Dec 2012	#3
They would likely have had flooding.	dbackjon	Dec 2012	#4
Yes but	elleng	Dec 2012	#6
Kinda gotcha headline there ...	GeorgeGist	Dec 2012	#2
Ba dooom ching!	underpants	Dec 2012	#10
Even if the government were liable	BumRushDaShow	Dec 2012	#5
We Had A Summer Long Flood In 2011 Along The Lower Missouri River	DallasNE	Dec 2012	#7
Decision was unanimous, 8-0 with Kagan recused herself	davidn3600	Dec 2012	#8
The Court said:	elleng	Dec 2012	#9
The Damage Was Both Intended And Foreseeable	DallasNE	Dec 2012	#11

Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:41 AM

dbackjon (3,527 posts)

1. And if there wasn't a dam?

Reply to this post

Response to dbackjon (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:10 PM

elleng (40,558 posts)

3. No government action.

Reply to this post

Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:20 PM

dbackjon (3,527 posts)

4. They would likely have had flooding.

Reply to this post

Response to dbackjon (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:48 PM

elleng (40,558 posts)

6. Yes but

The case addressed the politically charged issue of when government activity that affects private property constitutes a "taking" that requires payment to a landowner. Under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government must pay owners of private property that it takes for public purposes.

Reply to this post

Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:41 AM

GeorgeGist (9,556 posts)

2. Kinda gotcha headline there ...

because they don't give a dam.

Reply to this post

Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:41 PM

underpants (105,621 posts)

10. Ba dooom ching!

Reply to this post

Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:33 PM

BumRushDaShow (11,958 posts)

5. Even if the government were liable

Congress would have to appropriate the funds to pay out and that can take forever if it happens at all... Reference - the insanity of actually getting the funds set aside by Congress to give to the eligible black farmers after Pigford II was upheld by the SC and approved by the administration, where obstructionist Coburn put a hold on it for ages.

Reply to this post

Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:03 PM

DallasNE (2,963 posts)

7. We Had A Summer Long Flood In 2011 Along The Lower Missouri River

That caused considerable damage and even caused both Nebraska nuclear power plants to be shut down due to the flooding. Much of Interstate 29 was closed all summer.

Without the upstream damns the flooding would have been far, far worse but the water level behind the upstream damns were at dangerous levels making the controlled flooding necessary. One of the nuclear plants is still not back up (it was already down for routine maintence/repairs).

This ruling opens up the federal government to billions of dollars for damages in just this one climate change flood. Oh, and there was a more minor summer long flood in 2010 in the identical area and it took a lot of farm land out of production in 2010 (though it caused little other damage) and that is a few hundred million more. Do you also pay the barge companies because the river was closed for months to barge traffic?

This ruling will be expensive. Very expensive and a boon to lawyers jumping on the gravy train.

Reply to this post

Response to DallasNE (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:59 PM

davidn3600 (1,290 posts)

8. Decision was unanimous, 8-0 with Kagan recused herself

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Not much to debate about that. Ginsberg wrote the decision.

Supreme Court's job is to rule on the Constitution and the law. It's not their role to rule in what's in the best favor of the government or the people. The government is responsible for their own laws.

Reply to this post

Response to DallasNE (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:33 PM

elleng (40,558 posts)

9. The Court said:

'(L)ower courts would have to weigh numerous factors in deciding whether to award landowners compensation for temporary flooding, including the degree to which the damage was intended or foreseeable, recurring or severe.'

Right of eminent domain is in the Constitution, and it comes with requirement for 'just compensation.'

Reply to this post

Response to elleng (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:39 PM

DallasNE (2,963 posts)

11. The Damage Was Both Intended And Foreseeable

Heavy snow in the mountains plus a wet spring resulted in the upstream dams filling well over capacity and that required a really large, constant release from the dams.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)