NOTE: Pursuant to Fed . Cir. R. 47.6, this dispo s ition is not citable as precede nt. It is a pu blic record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

04-5118 HENDERSON COUNTY DRAINAG E DISTRICT NO. 3, BAY ISLAND DRAINAGE & L EVEE DISTRICT NO. 1, INDIAN GRAVE DRAINAG E DISTRICT, LIMA LAKE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, HUNT DRAINAGE DISTRICT, DRUR Y DRAINAGE DISTRICT, HILLVIEW DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT, NUTWOOD DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT , ELDRED DRAINAGE DISTRICT, SOUTH RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, MA RION COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT, FABIUS RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, KEECH DRAINAGE DISTRICT, JOHN A. ROBB, BARBARA ROBB, ROBERT MUNSON, COURTNEY MUNSON, HOWARD PRUETT, and the ESTAT E OF GLENN J. ROMKEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: June 14, 2005

______ ____________________ Before CLEVENGER, BRYSON and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges

. CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge

. This is an appeal from a fi nal decision of the Court of Federal Claims holding, inter alia : (1) that Appellants are not entitled to reformation of a contract they entered into with the United States in 1961; and (2) that Appellants' takings claims against the United States are either time -barred or, alternatively, no t proved. Because Appellants have shown no error of law or fact in t he thorough and well-reasoned decision of the Court of Federal Claims, we affirm

.I The facts of this case are complex, but are ably and completely set forth in a series of opinions of the Court of Federal Claims. See Hender son Co. Dr ainage Dist. No. 3 v. U n ited States , 60 Fed. Cl. 748 (May 26, 2004); Hender son Co. Drainage Dist

. No. 3 v. U n ited States , 55 Fed. Cl. 334 (Jan. 23, 2003); Hender son Co. Drainage Dist

. No. 3 v. United States , 53 Fed. Cl. 48 (July 30, 2002). Very briefly , this case involves a series of locks and dams constru c ted during the 1930s on the upper Mississ ippi River for the purpose of es tablishing and maintainin g a nine-foot deep nav igation chan nel. The project is known as the "N avigation Project." The plai ntiffs are drainage district s bordering the Mississ ippi Riv er and riparian lando wners who own land within the districts. Collectively, this opinion refers to th e plaintiffs as the "Districts." In 1961, the United States entered into an agreement with the Districts, whic h provided that the Un ited States would make a one-ti me payment in exc h ange for a promise to "release and forever discharge the United St ates . . . from any and al l damages and claims f o r damages, past, present, and future, that said district may have or claim to have, arising out of, resulting fr om, or caused by the execution, c onstruction, operation, or maintenance of the nine-foot channel project." 53 Fed. Cl. at 53. In 1995, the Districts sued t he United States claiming t hat the United States had breached t he 1961 agreements, that the agr eements should be reformed, and that b y its operation of the Navigation Project, the United States had taken their property without just compensation. The Court of Federal Claim s entered summary judgment in favor of the United States on the claims for breach of contract and reformation. See 53 Fed. Cl. at 53-58.

04-5118 2After conducting a trial, the court held that the Districts' takings claims were time-barred,

see 60 Fed. Cl. at 757-68, but t hat if not time-barred, the Districts had failed to prove that the Navigation Project had c aused a taking of their property, see 60 Fed. Cl. at 768-
80. The Districts appeal, contending that the C ourt of Federal Claim s erred by not reforming the 1961 c ontract, and "erred . . . in c oncluding that [the Districts'] takings claims are barred by t he six year [sic] statute of limitations." We r e view fina l decisions of the Court of Federal Claims purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). II We review the grant of summary judgment de novo , vie wing all factual inferences in favor of t he nonmov ant. See Anderson v. United States , 344 F.3 d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We otherwise review conclus i ons of law of the Cour t of Federal Claims de

novo , while reviewing findings of fact made by the Court of Federal Claims for clear

error. See Glendale Fed. Bank, F SB v. United States , 239 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A For the reasons clearly identified and thoroughly dis c ussed by the Court of Federal Claims, the government has not breached the 1961 contract and reformation is not appropriate. See 53 Fed. Cl. at 57. The Distric ts have not demonstrated any error in either the court's interpretation of the cont ract or the court's hol ding that the Districts ' contract claims are time-barred. In addit ion, the Districts have s hown no error in the finding of the Court of Federal Claims that the a lleged mutual mistake pertained to a prediction or judgment concerning a future event. Id

. Moreover, the Districts have

04-5118 3failed to show any error in the fi nding of t he Court of Federal Cla ims that the allegedly mistaken seepage estimates, upon which the 1961 settlement payments were supposedly based, were not in fact mi staken. 60 Fed. Cl. at 773-74. B The Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that the Districts have no t proved that the United States has taken their property without just compensation by its operation of the Navigation Project. The Court of Federal Claims thoroughly address ed the relevant issues, and correctly concluded t hat the "plaintiff's failed to pr ove at trial that the N a vigation Projec t caused the seepage, gravity drainage and levee erosion problems of which t hey have co mplain ed in this ac tion." 60 Fed. Cl. at 781. Th e government contends that the Districts have not set fort h a well-ar ticulated appeal from this holding. Even ass u ming, arguendo , that the Districts did pr operly appe al t he merits of this issue, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims that the Districts failed to establish a taking of their property . Moreover, we also conclude that the takings claim is time-barred for the reasons clearly set forth by the Court of Federal Cla ims. See 60 Fed. Cl. at 757-68. No costs.

04-5118 4