United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IDEKER FARMS, INC., ROBERT ADKINS, JR., 

ROBERT ADKINS, SR., ESTATE OF BETTY ADKINS, ESTATE OF ROBERT ADKINS, SR., KEN ADKINS, DBA ROBERT ADKINS & SONS 

PARTNERSHIP, GERALD SCHNEIDER, DBA BUFFALO HOLLOW FARMS, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants

LYNN BINDER, ELAINE BINDER, TODD BINDER, 

APRIL BINDER, TYLER BINDER, VALERIE 

BINDER, RICHARD BINDER, DUSTIN BINDER, 

DARWIN BINDER, DBA MIDWEST GRAIN CO., EDDIE DREWES, ROBERT W. DREWES REVOCABLE 

TRUST, RITA K. DREWES REVOCABLE TRUST, 

DAVID DREWES, INDIVIDUALLY AND, DBA 

DREWES FARMS, INC., PATRICK NEWLON, DBA 

NEWLON FARMS, INC., DAVID NEWLON, DBA D 

DOUBLE N FARMS, INC., JASON TAYLOR, BRAD 

TAYLOR, DBA H.B.J. FARMS, INC., LYLE HODDE, 

DBA HODDE & SONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

STEVE CUNNINGHAM, TRUSTEE OF THE DORIS 

J. CUNNINGHAM AND STEVEN K. CUNNINGHAM 

DECLARATION OF TRUST, GAIL CUNNINGHAM, 

DBA CUNNINGHAM FARMS, INC., CHARLES 

GARST, INDIVIDUALLY AND, DBA GARST FARMS, 

INC., CONNIE GARST, DBA GARST FARMS, INC., 

RON SCHNEIDER, MARY SCHNEIDER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs

v.

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2023
2 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2021-1849, 2021-1875

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00183-AOB, Judge Armando O. 

Bonilla. 

______________________ 

Decided: June 16, 2023

______________________ 

DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-cross-appellants. 

Also represented by ELAINE GOLDENBERG, DAHLIA MIGNOUNA; BENJAMIN JOSEPH HORWICH, San Francisco, CA; 

SETH C. WRIGHT, Polsinelli, PC, Kansas City, MO. 

 BRIAN C. TOTH, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented 

by TODD KIM. 

 

 DAVID CHUNG, Crowell & Moring LLP, for amicus curiae American Farm Bureau Federation. Also represented 

by ELIZABETH DAWSON. 

 TREVOR CALDWELL BURRUS, Cato Institute, for amici curiae Cato Institute, Mountain States Legal Foundation. 

Also represented by JOSEPH BINGHAM, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, CO; ILYA SHAPIRO, Manhattan 

Institute, New York, NY. 

 JEREMY CHARLES MARWELL, Vinson & Elkins LLP, 

Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 3

of the United States of America. 

 JAY R. CARSON, Wegman Hessler, Cleveland, OH, for 

amicus curiae Buckeye Institute. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

MOORE, Chief Judge. 

Plaintiffs brought this action against the United States 

under the Fifth Amendment seeking compensation for the 

Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) alleged taking of their 

farmlands and personal property by permanent, recurring 

flooding. The Court of Federal Claims determined there 

was a taking and entered judgment awarding compensation for the diminished value of the land but rejected damages claims for lost crops. The Government appeals the

trial court’s determination that a taking occurred. Plaintiffs cross-appeal the denial of compensation for lost crops. 

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, vacate

in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

BACKGROUND

A. The Missouri River

The Missouri River (River) spans over 2,300 miles. It 

begins in southwestern Montana and winds through North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri before emptying into the Mississippi River. The 

River’s basin encompasses approximately one sixth of the 

land mass of the continental United States. Until the middle of the twentieth century, the River was multi-channeled and predominantly “wide and shallow,” ranging from 

1,000 feet to almost six miles wide. J.A. 51,703. 

In its natural state, the River experienced annual 

flooding that constantly morphed its path and the 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 3 Filed: 06/16/2023
4 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

topography of its floodplain. The annual flooding pattern 

consisted of April flooding caused by snowmelt on the 

plains and local rainfall and June flooding caused by melting snowpack in the Rocky Mountains and rainfall at lower 

elevations. J.A. 50,742. During these floods, the River 

would extend across large portions of the floodplain up to 

seventeen miles, connecting the primary channel to secondary channels. J.A. 50,741–42; J.A. 50,899. The flooding

caused erosion and deposited sediment as the flood waters 

receded. J.A. 50,742. In a flood’s wake was an altered 

floodplain, riverbank, and laterally relocated river channels. J.A. 50,742; J.A. 50,900. In this way, the flooding 

cycles kept the River in a state of “dynamic equilibrium 

with its floodplain” in which the River “migrated back and 

forth” across its floodplain. J.A. 50,742; J.A. 50,886. In 

sum, the River “was uncontrolled” and, as a result, rendered large portions of the floodplain unproductive for development, including agricultural use. J.A. 50,885; J.A. 

51,052; J.A. 52,926. 

In the 1940s, Congress passed several bills to improve

navigation and reduce flooding. The Flood Control Act 

(FCA) of 1944 authorized the construction of a series of 

dams to create a reservoir storage system designed to contain excess water and reduce flooding. Pub. L. No. 78-534, 

58 Stat. 887 (codified at 33 U.S.C § 701 et seq.); see South

Dakota v. Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d 1014, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) 

(summarizing history of FCA); see also ETSI Pipeline Project v. Missouri, 484 U.S. 495, 499–505, 512–14 (1988)

(same). The dams, which make up the Missouri River 

Mainstem Reservoir System (Mainstem System), were 

completed in 1967. The FCA required the Corps to operate 

the Mainstem System to promote a series of objectives, primarily navigation and flood control, and secondarily fish 

and wildlife conservation, among other things. See 58 Stat. 

887–91; 33 U.S.C. § 701–1 (Declaration of Policy of FCA); 

see ETSI, 484 U.S. at 512; Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d at 1019–20. 

In 1945, Congress established the Bank Stabilization and 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 4 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 5

Navigation Project (BSNP). Under the BSNP, the Corps 

altered the River’s water flow (including location, volume, 

and rate) by constructing a “self-scouring” navigation channel and building dikes, levees, and revetments. J.A. 51,707. 

These modifications eliminated secondary channels, narrowed the River’s channel to as little as one third its natural width, reduced flooding, and stabilized the riverbanks. 

As a result, the River was no longer dynamic with respect 

to the floodplain. J.A. 51,707–08; J.A. 51,724. The Corps 

completed the BSNP in 1980. 

Consistent with the FCA, the Corps manages the Mainstem System while accounting for the effects of BSNP 

structures according to operations outlined in its 1979 

Master Manual, which it used from 1979 until 2004. The 

1979 Master Manual prioritized flood control first and recreation and wildlife last. See Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d at 1028. 

The Mainstem System and BSNP accomplished their

intended effect: what was previously economically unproductive floodplain became stable for development. J.A. 

53,478 (Government 30(b)(6) witness stating goal was to 

encourage development). Farmers and developers invested 

in and improved the land free from annual flooding. J.A. 

52,862 (Government report). By March 2005, 95 percent of 

the River floodplain was developed for agricultural, urban, 

and industrial uses. J.A. 52,862. 

 The Mainstem System and BSNP, however, also had 

significant environmental side effects. See Ideker Farms, 

Inc. v. United States, 136 Fed. Cl. 654, 664–66 (2018)

(Phase I). In particular, the self-scouring navigation channel altered downstream sediment deposits, while 

riverbank stabilization and floodplain reduction eliminated fish and bird habitats and interrupted wildlife breeding cycles. Id. at 664–65. Realizing the environmental 

impact of the Mainstem System and BSNP, in 1986, Congress authorized the Corps to purchase land adjacent to the 

River to recreate lost habitats. Id. at 665. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 5 Filed: 06/16/2023
6 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

The Corps’ land reclamation was not its only mitigating action. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) placed several bird species and one fish species affected by the 

Mainstem System and BSNP on the endangered species 

list pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Id. at 

666 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). The ESA requires any 

agency, including the Corps, to consult with FWS and conduct a biological assessment regarding the impact of its activities on the survival or recovery of an endangered 

species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a), (c). In response to the

agency’s assessment, FWS provides a biological opinion

(BiOp) of the agency’s impact on the endangered or threatened species and provides “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for the agency to take if it determines the agency’s 

intended action would violate the ESA. 16 

U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). Unless the agency gets an exemption or is allowed to “take” a limited number of endangered 

species, the agency must follow the BiOp or provide a reasonable alternative to satisfy its obligations under the 

ESA. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(a)(2), 1539; Phase I, 136 Fed. Cl. 

at 666. 

In the 1990s, the Corps and FWS began discussions 

concerning proposed changes to the River designed to mitigate the environmental impact of the Mainstem System 

and BSNP. J.A. 52,103–27. As part of those discussions, 

FWS issued several BiOps, some of which called for restoring the natural spring and summer river cycles and wildlife 

habitats. Phase I, 136 Fed. Cl. at 666; see In re Operation 

of Mo. River Sys. Litig., 421 F.3d 618, 626 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The Corps did not make those changes because it determined FWS’ proposed actions would exacerbate flood risks 

to land adjacent to the River, contrary to the Mainstem 

System and BSNP’s primary objective. Phase I, 136 Fed. 

Cl. at 666–67; see Mo. River Sys. Litig., 421 F.3d at 626. In 

2002, the Corps faced several lawsuits—which were consolidated for multi-district litigation—from private parties 

and states objecting to the Corps’ River management for 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 6 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 7

differing reasons, including its failure to implement the 

changes in the 2000 BiOp. See In re Operation of the Mo. 

River Sys. Litig., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1156–62 (D. Minn. 

2004), aff’d in part, 421 F.3d 618. As a result of those lawsuits, the district court ordered the Corps to revise its 1979 

Master Manual, which resulted in the 2004 Master Manual. In re Operation of Mo. River Sys. Litig., 305 F. Supp. 

2d 1096, 1099 (D. Minn. 2004).

The 2004 Master Manual brought many changes to the 

Mainstem System and BSNP (2004 Changes). The BSNP 

changes (River Changes) were intended to “restor[e] the 

Missouri River to a more natural state.” Phase I, 136 Fed. 

Cl. at 669. The Corps referred to this as the Missouri River 

Recovery Program (MRRP). Id. The MRRP created more 

shallow water habitats through modifications to the channel and dikes and reopened chutes that the Corps previously closed. Id. The Corps also made changes to the 

Mainstem System management (System Changes). Unlike 

the 1979 Master Manual that prioritized flood control over 

wildlife, the 2004 Master Manual eliminated prioritization. 

J.A. 50,117. 

B. Procedural Background

This case arises out of the impacts of the 2004 Changes. 

Plaintiffs are approximately 372 individuals and entities

who own and operate farms adjacent to the River in six 

states. While the period from 2000–2006 was largely a 

drought, periodic flooding returned in 2007, 2008, 2010, 

2011, 2013, and 2014. Phase I, 136 Fed. Cl. at 670. Plaintiffs filed suit in 2014 in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the 2004 Changes caused frequent and severe flooding

on Plaintiffs’ farms between 2007 and 2014 that amounted 

to permanent, physical takings under the Fifth Amendment. 

The trial court split Plaintiffs’ action into two phases. 

In Phase I, the trial court selected 44 bellwether Plaintiffs 

to be the subject of its decision whether the 2004 Changes 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 7 Filed: 06/16/2023
8 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

caused the flooding, whether the flooding was the foreseeable or predictable result of the 2004 Changes, and 

whether the flooding was severe enough to be a taking. Id.

at 659, 672–73, 675, 678–79. The bellwether Plaintiffs presented evidence about their respective properties and the 

flooding events that occurred on their lands between 2007 

and 2014. Id. Expert witnesses and government officials 

also testified about the effects of the 2004 Changes. Id. 

The trial court found that 28 of the 44 bellwether Plaintiffs 

established at least causation and foreseeability or causation, foreseeability, and adequate severity for some years 

of flooding between 2007 and 2014.1 Id. at 761–62. It dismissed the remaining 16 Plaintiffs. Id. at 763. It also 

found the 2004 Changes did not cause flooding in 2011 for 

any Plaintiff. Id. at 691–93. 

The Government moved for reconsideration of the 

Phase I opinion’s causation analysis in light of our intervening decision in St. Bernard Parish Government v. 

United States, 887 F.3d 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018). See 

Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 222 (2019)

(Reconsideration Decision). The trial court denied the motion, determining the exception to the causation standard 

identified by St. Bernard Parish was applicable to this 

case. Id. at 232. 

The trial court then proceeded to Phase II, where it 

tried damages and the Government’s defenses. To assess 

these issues, the court selected the properties of three representative Plaintiffs out of those who prevailed in Phase 

I: the Adkins property, the Ideker Farms property, and the 

Buffalo Hollow Farms property. Ideker Farms, Inc. v. 

United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 560, 567 (2020) (Phase II). 

1 The trial court found that some bellwether Plaintiffs had not yet established severity. Id. at 761–62. The 

trial court reserved the remaining severity determinations 

for Phase II. Id. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 8 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 9

Based on the trial court’s finding that the parties agreed it 

was appropriate to apply the Arkansas Game & Fish II factors, it applied those factors to this case. Id. at 584, 593 

n.23 (citing Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United 

States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012) (Arkansas Game & Fish II)). The 

factors, which apply to temporary, intermittent flooding, 

are severity, duration, intent or foreseeability, character of 

the land, and the owner’s reasonable, investment-backed 

expectations. Arkansas Game & Fish II, 568 U.S. at 31–

39. Applying those factors, the trial court determined the 

flooding was a taking of a permanent flowage easement, 

Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 584–93, that began in 2007 and 

stabilized on December 31, 2014. Id. at 593–98. The trial 

court collectively awarded the three representative Plaintiffs approximately $7,000,000 for property value diminution, $1,000,000 for repairing a levee, and prejudgment 

interest.2 Id. at 606, 608–10. The court ruled, however, 

that Plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation for crops

destroyed during the stabilization period because they 

were consequential damages. Id. at 606–08. 

The Government appeals, and Plaintiffs cross-appeal,

rulings from both trial phases. Specifically, the Government argues the Court of Federal Claims erroneously determined the accrual date for Plaintiffs’ taking claims, 

which resulted in the trial court’s improper exercise of jurisdiction after the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs’ 

claims had run. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 1–2. It also 

argues the trial court erred in its application of the Arkansas Game & Fish II factors, the legal standard for causation, and the availability of a relative benefits defense. Id.

at 2. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, arguing the trial court erred 

in denying compensation for lost crops and finding the 2004 

Changes did not cause the 2011 flooding. Resp. Br. and 

2 The trial court stayed the remaining Plaintiffs’ 

cases until this appeal is resolved. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 9 Filed: 06/16/2023
10 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

Cross-Appeal Br. at 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

I. GOVERNMENT’S APPEAL

A. Jurisdiction

As a threshold issue, the Government argues the Court 

of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501. First, the Government challenges the Court of Federal Claims’ use of the stabilization 

doctrine in this case because the effects of the flooding 

manifested immediately. Second, the Government contends the trial court clearly erred in finding that the claims 

accrued in December 2014 rather than 2007. And because 

Plaintiffs filed this action in 2014, more than six years after 

the alleged 2007 accrual date, their claims are time-barred. 

Plaintiffs respond that the trial court properly applied the 

stabilization doctrine because the recurring flooding establishing the taking was a gradual process. They also argue

the trial court’s fact findings that the claims did not stabilize until 2014 were not clearly erroneous and that the trial 

court had jurisdiction. We agree with Plaintiffs that the 

Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over this case. 

A plaintiff must bring a claim in the Court of Federal 

Claims “within six years after such claim first accrues.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2501. Section 2501’s six-year limitation is jurisdictional. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 457 

F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]e are unwilling to disturb the well-settled law that section 2501 creates a jurisdictional condition precedent for suit in the Court of 

Federal Claims, which may not be waived by the parties.”),

aff’d, 552 U.S. 130 (2008). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. K-Con Bldg. Sys., 

Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo with subsidiary fact findings 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 10 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 11

we review for clear error. Nw. La. Fish & Game Pres. 

Comm’n v. United States, 446 F.3d 1285, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 

2006); Ferreiro v. United States, 350 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003). Under the clear error standard, we defer to the 

trial court’s “findings of fact, unless there is a ‘definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Biogen 

Int’l GMBH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 18 F.4th 1333, 1341 

(Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp. N.V., 528 F.3d 1365, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 

A claim accrues “when all the events have occurred 

which fix the liability of the Government” and the plaintiff 

“was or should have been aware” that the claim existed. 

Goodrich v. United States, 434 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 

2006) (quoting Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United 

States, 855 F.2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); Boling v. 

United States, 220 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In 

some cases, the events that give rise to liability may take 

place over extended periods of time rather than at a discrete instance. In such cases, the accrual date is determined according to the stabilization doctrine, which 

accounts for the difficulty of ascertaining a precise time 

“when the property is taken by a gradual physical process 

rather than a discrete action undertaken by the Government.” Mildenberger v. United States, 643 F.3d 938, 945 

(Fed. Cir. 2011). Pursuant to this doctrine, where “the 

damages from a taking only gradually emerge, e.g., as in 

recurrent flooding, a litigant may postpone a suit for a taking until ‘the situation becomes stabilized’ and ‘the consequences of inundation have so manifested themselves that 

a final account may be struck.’” Nw. La. Fish, 446 F.3d at 

1290–91 (citation omitted); see also Cooper v. United 

States, 827 F.2d 762, 764 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding the “extent of the [tree damage due to flooding] was not ascertainable until 1984” even though trees began to show damage 

in 1979); United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745, 749

(1947) (“The source of the entire claim—the overflow due 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 11 Filed: 06/16/2023
12 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

to rises in the level of the river—is not a single event; it is 

continuous.”). 

The Government argues the stabilization doctrine is inapplicable here because the effects of the 2004 Changes 

(i.e., the 2007 flood event itself) manifested “immediately, 

not gradually,” unlike cases involving flooding leading to

erosion or uncontrollable aquatic plant growth. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 58–59. This argument misses the 

mark. What’s important to the accrual inquiry is not only

when the effects of the damage are known or should have 

been known but also when “all events which fix liability 

have occurred.” Nw. La. Fish, 446 F.3d at 1290 (quoting 

Boling, 220 F.3d at 1370). “[I]t is the uncertainty surrounding the permanent nature of the taking, and not the 

uncertainty surrounding the ultimate extent of the[] damage, that is critical in determining whether the situation 

has stabilized.” Boling, 220 F.3d at 1372. Here, the events 

fixing the Government’s liability are recurring floodings 

over several years that rise to a taking of a permanent flowage easement on Plaintiffs’ lands. In the flooding context, 

we rejected the argument that a “takings claim accrued immediately upon the first inundation of the property because at that point, the frequency and permanency of the 

flooding were still undeterminable.” Mildenberger, 643 

F.3d at 945 (citing Dickinson, 331 U.S. at 749). If Plaintiffs 

brought a tort claim for a single flood in 2007, then the statute of limitations may have run from the date of that single 

flood event. But that is not the case here.3 We conclude 

3 The Government argues the trial court erroneously 

treated the flooding as a continuous event instead of a single flood in 2007 based on the decision in Barnes v. United 

States. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 61–63 (citing 538 F.2d 

865, 874 (Ct. Cl. 1976)). This argument rests on the same 

erroneous analysis discussed below. See infra Section II.A. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 12 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 13

that the Court of Federal Claims properly analyzed this according to the stabilization doctrine. 

 The Government also challenges the Court of Federal 

Claims’ stabilization findings, specifically that the events 

fixing liability “continued past 2007, into 2014” and that 

Plaintiffs reasonably did not know and should not have 

known that the 2004 Changes caused the taking of a permanent easement. See Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 595–96. It 

also argues, even if the claims did not accrue in 2007, then 

the trial court’s December 31, 2014 accrual date is unsupported by the record. Because these findings are not clearly 

erroneous, we reject the Government’s argument. 

First, the Court of Federal Claims’ finding that the 

claims did not stabilize in 2007 (i.e., that the events fixing 

liability were ongoing) is supported by the court’s findings 

that the modifications and their effects on the River were 

ongoing and dynamic. The Government does not dispute 

that the Corps’ modifications to the River continued into 

2014. Phase I, 136 Fed. Cl. at 669 (“Corps studies explain 

that as of 2014, the Corps had undertaken 1,697 dike 

notching actions, 354 major modification actions, 63 dike 

lowering actions, 36 dike extension actions, 39 side-channel chute actions, 20 revetment chute actions, 14 backwater actions, and 3 channel widening actions.”); Phase II, 

151 Fed. Cl. at 595–96. Assuming these modifications 

causally contributed to the flooding of Plaintiffs’ property, 

which we address below, that the modifications continued 

until at least 2014 supports the trial court’s finding that 

the taking had not stabilized in 2007. The modifications to 

the River’s water flow and its effects were ongoing, dynamic, and complex. Phase I, 136 Fed. Cl. at 702–05 (describing evidence of gradual changes to river topography 

and other characteristics); Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 596–

97; see, e.g., Nw. La. Fish, 446 F.3d at 1290 (“The harm in 

this case [aquatic plant growth] . . . did not occur (i.e., was 

not fixed) until well after” the water level reached maximum height.). This conclusion is supported by models 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 13 Filed: 06/16/2023
14 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

comparing the River’s water flow between 2005 and 2013. 

Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 595. 

Second, the Government’s arguments that Plaintiffs 

reasonably knew or should have known by 2007 that the 

2004 Changes resulted in a taking of a permanent flowage 

easement are inapt. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 54, 58–

61. The effects of ESA-mandated changes were not immediately apparent for purposes of stabilization. The nature 

of the taking is a permanent flowage easement by recurring 

flooding. It is reasonable that Plaintiffs did not know from 

a single flood the existence, let alone the extent, of the pattern of new and recurring flooding that would result in a

permanent taking. See Boling, 220 F.3d at 1370 (“[T]he 

key date for accrual purposes is the date on which the 

plaintiff’s land has been clearly and permanently taken.”); 

Dickinson, 331 U.S. at 748–49 (holding statute of limitation did not run from first flooding event). The trial court 

credited testimony that Plaintiffs did not know the cause 

of the flooding until years after 2007. Phase II, 151 Fed. 

Cl. at 595. This testimony is supported by the fact that the 

cause and effects of the recurring flooding are difficult to 

ascertain “given the complex nature of the hydrology of the 

River.” Id. Further, some Plaintiffs did not even experience flooding in 2007, and the Government does not explain 

how those Plaintiffs’ claims could have accrued in 2007. 

See Phase I, 136 Fed. Cl. at 736–37 (finding Corps’ actions 

caused flooding in 2008 and 2010), 746–47 (finding Corps’ 

actions caused flooding in 2010 and 2013). The Government also improperly relies on the foreseeability of the taking. The accrual inquiry examines whether Plaintiffs knew 

or should have known the events fixing liability occurred, 

not whether they could have predicted such events would 

occur. Mildenberger, 643 F.3d at 946 (“[C]laimants are not 

required to sue when it is still uncertain whether the gradual process will result in a permanent taking.”). 

Third, we reject the Government’s argument that the 

trial court’s December 31, 2014 accrual date is arbitrary 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 14 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 15

because it is not related to any physical event. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 59–61. When a reasonable plaintiff 

knew or should have known that his claim stabilized does 

not need to correspond identically with the physical event 

giving rise to liability. Instead, Northwest Louisiana Fish

makes clear the knowledge requirement is separate from 

(though obviously related to) the requirement that the 

events establishing liability have occurred.4 446 F.3d at 

1290 (“The correct standard recites that accrual occurs 

when the harmed party knows or should have known of 

their existence and all events which fix the government’s 

alleged liability have occurred.” (emphasis added) (citation 

and quotation marks omitted)). Here, Plaintiffs did not 

learn of the full scope of the River and System Changes and 

their effects on flooding until several years of recurring 

flooding. At that point, Plaintiffs consulted experts to confirm their suspicions about the cause of the flooding and 

filed suit within a few months of confirmation from those 

experts. See Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 595–96. This causation and damages knowledge derived from expert opinions 

based on analysis of recurrent flooding during the period 

from 2007 to 2014, which necessarily could not have been 

provided in 2007, did not arise until 2014. The trial court’s 

finding that Plaintiffs did not reasonably know that a compensable taking had occurred until that date is thus not 

clearly erroneous. In short, even though stabilization may 

4 At least one other area of federal law similarly bases claim accrual on dates other than the physical events 

they are tethered to, including considering the parties’ reasonable efforts to seek expert technical advice. For example, for an injured patient seeking damages for medical 

malpractice under the Federal Tort Claim Act, the time for 

a plaintiff to understand the claimed injury and seek medical advice regarding its cause may be considered in accrual. See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 123

(1979). 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 15 Filed: 06/16/2023
16 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

occur before “damages are complete and fully calculable,” 

Mildenberger, 643 F.2d at 946, the trial court’s accrual date 

is not clearly erroneous given the complex nature of the 

flooding, its effects here, the relevant time period, and the 

time Plaintiffs needed to consult experts to establish causation. See Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 596. 

In sum, we hold the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err in 

finding that the taking had not accrued until December 

2014. The stabilization doctrine is a “practical matter and 

not a technical rule of law” designed for precisely these circumstances: where the causes and effects of a taking are 

varied and may take time to manifest. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 

at 749. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ exercise of 

jurisdiction and its determinations that Plaintiffs’ claims 

accrued December 31, 2014. 

B. Takings Framework

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause guarantees 

that private property shall not be taken “for public use, 

without just compensation.” U.S. CONST. amend. V, cl. 4. 

If the government “physically acquires private property,” 

then there is a physical taking to which a per se rule applies. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2071

(2021). We assess per se takings according to a straightforward rule: “The government must pay for what it takes.” 

Id. (citing Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 322 (2002)). This 

is true regardless of the size, invasiveness, or intermittent 

nature of the physical occupation. See id. at 2075 (“[P]hysical invasions constitute takings even if they are intermittent as opposed to continuous.”); Loretto v. Teleprompter 

Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 438 (1982) (holding 

that requiring landlords to install cables and cable boxes to 

the outside of apartment buildings, while occupying relatively little space, was a taking); United States v. Causby, 

328 U.S. 256, 259 (1946) (holding taking occurred where 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 16 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 17

Army occupied airspace above plaintiff’s land for limited 

periods of takeoff and landing). 

In Arkansas Game & Fish II, the Supreme Court clarified that temporary flooding can be a taking and established a multi-factor test for determining if temporary 

government induced flooding is a taking rather than a 

mere trespass. 568 U.S. at 38–39. The trial court determined it “appropriate to apply the Arkansas Game & Fish

factors for the taking of a permanent flowage easement by 

intermittent flooding” because, in its view, the parties 

agreed it was appropriate to apply those factors to determine if the permanent intermittent flooding was a taking. 

Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 592–93 & n.23. Though it is not 

clear that the parties agreed the multi-factor test announced in Arkansas Game & Fish II is the correct legal 

framework for this permanent taking,5 “[w]e are not bound 

to accept, as controlling, stipulations as to questions of 

law.” Sanford’s Est. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 308 

U.S. 39, 51 (1939) (citing Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley 

Railway Co., 243 U.S. 281, 289 (1917)). The proper legal 

framework is a question of law the court may decide.6 

5 Plaintiffs assumed, without conceding, that all of 

Arkansas Game & Fish II’s factors applied to permanent, 

though intermittent, flooding simply as a “belt-and-suspenders” approach to its analysis, arguing it would prevail 

even if those factors applied. ECF No. 690 at Tr. 3389:5–

3391:8; see Oral Arg. at 34:40–35:08 (Government stating the parties “have assumed [the factors] apply”), available at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.asp

x?fl=21-1849_11012022.mp3. 

6 To be clear, we find no factual error in the Court of 

Federal Claims’ application of the Arkansas Game & Fish 

II factors and determine Plaintiffs’ prevail under that 

framework. There are, however, hundreds of remaining 

plaintiffs whose cases have been stayed pending this 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 17 Filed: 06/16/2023
18 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99 (1991) 

(“When an issue or claim is properly before the court, the 

court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but retains the independent power 

to identify and apply the proper construction of governing 

law.”). 

Arkansas Game & Fish II’s multi-factor test does not 

determine whether a permanent taking has been effected 

by government action that will foreseeably produce intermittent invasions by flooding without identifiable end into 

the future. “In this case, however, both parties agree that 

if the court finds that a taking occurred, that taking is permanent.” Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 585. Rather, such action

is a per se taking. Arkansas Game & Fish II involved temporary intermittent flooding that occurred during a sevenyear period that ended when the government ceased its 

flood-inducing actions. 568 U.S. at 26–28; see Arkansas 

Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 736 F.3d 1364, 

1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Arkansas Game & Fish III) (decision 

on remand from Supreme Court, explaining that the issue 

was whether a “temporary taking” had occurred); Milton v. 

United States, 36 F.4th 1154, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing 

Arkansas Game approach only for “temporary taking,” not 

for “permanent taking”). The Supreme Court held “simply 

and only, that government-induced flooding temporary in 

duration gains no automatic exemption from Takings 

adjudication. In these circumstances, it makes good sense 

for us to address the proper legal framework for permanent, rather than temporary, intermittent flooding. See 

PaineWebber, Inc. v. Cohen, 276 F.3d 197, 206 (6th Cir. 

2001) (addressing issue on appeal where factual record did 

not need development, the issue is one of law, and judicial

efficiency favored addressing the merits). Our failure to 

address this issue would waste judicial resources and unnecessarily burden the parties on remand. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 18 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 19

Clause inspection.” 568 U.S. at 38. It added that when 

determining whether a temporary flooding is a taking instead of a trespass, courts should consider duration, foreseeability, character of the land, severity, and the 

reasonable, investment-backed expectations of the property holder. Id. at 38–39. The Court repeatedly noted that 

permanent physical occupations, including intermittent 

flooding, fall on the side of the “bright line[]” of a taking 

and distinguished them from temporary invasions. Id. at 

31–33 (collecting cases regarding “permanent physical occupation of property” and “intermittent but inevitably recurring overflows”); see id. at 38–39. That intermittent (as 

opposed to continuous) yet permanently recurring occupations are per se takings is not a new concept—“There is no 

difference of kind, but only of degree, between a permanent 

condition of continual overflow by backwater and a permanent liability to intermittent but inevitably recurring overflows; and, on principle, the right to compensation must 

arise in the one case as in the other.” United States v. 

Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 328 (1917); see Nollan v. California 

Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 832 (1987) (stating appropriation of easement was a “permanent physical occupation 

. . . where individuals are given a permanent and continuous right to pass to and fro, . . . even though no particular 

individual is permitted to station himself permanently 

upon the premises” (emphasis added)). 

The trial court accepted based on the parties’ stipulation that the flooding in this case is permanent, not temporary, in nature. Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 592–93. In short, 

the Government has not ceased and does not plan to cease 

flooding Plaintiffs’ lands. To the extent Arkansas Game & 

Fish II’s narrow holding and reiteration of the well-established principle that permanent yet intermittent physical 

invasions are per se takings is not enough, the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Cedar Point, issued after the trial court 

decision in this case, makes that abundantly clear. It

stated that the “approach in Arkansas Game and Fish 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 19 Filed: 06/16/2023
20 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

Commission reflects nothing more than an application of 

the traditional trespass-versus-takings distinction to the 

unique considerations that accompany temporary flooding.” 141 S. Ct. at 2078–79 (emphases added); id. at 2075 

(“[P]hysical invasions constitute takings even if they are 

intermittent as opposed to continuous.”). In contrast to the 

temporary intermittent flooding at issue in Arkansas Game 

& Fish II, Cedar Point explained that permanent intermittent flooding is a physical taking subject to a per se rule. 

Id. at 2071 (citing Cress, 243 U.S. at 327–28). The “government likewise effects a physical taking when it occupies 

property–say by recurrent flooding as a result of building a 

dam. These sorts of physical appropriations constitute the 

‘clearest sort of taking,’ and we assess them using a simple, 

per se rule: The government must pay for what it takes.”7 

Id. (citations omitted). 

This is not to say that an analysis of whether a permanent taking or a trespass has occurred might not overlap in 

part with the Arkansas Game & Fish II analysis of whether

a temporary taking or trespass occurred. But sometimes

distinguishing between takings and trespasses will be 

much simpler. This is such a case. Where the government 

takes a permanent right of access, akin to an easement in 

gross, even if used only intermittently, it is unquestionably 

an appropriation of the owner’s right to exclude. It is undisputed that the Corps has permanently burdened Plaintiffs’ land with a right to access their land with flood 

waters.8 Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 585, 592–93, 596. And 

7 Moreover, the inapplicability of the Arkansas 

Game & Fish II factors to permanently recurring flooding 

is supported by the fact that some factors, like duration,

are irrelevant in the permanent context. 

8 To the extent stayed Plaintiffs’ have not established that flooding will be permanently recurring, the trial 

court shall determine that where necessary on remand. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 20 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 21

as in Cedar Point, where California granted union workers 

“a formal entitlement to physically invade” the farmers’ 

land, 141 S. Ct. at 2080, here the Government has permanently caused recurring physical occupation of Plaintiffs’ 

land by floodwaters. The fact that the floodwaters come 

and go during the year, i.e., are intermittent, does not negate the existence of a taking. Those considerations “bear 

only on the amount of compensation.” Id. at 2074. 

In cases that are closer calls than this one, courts must 

continue to rely on Arkansas Game & Fish II and Ridge 

Line. 568 U.S. at 38–39; 346 F.3d at 1355–57; see Moden 

v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Indeed, while not rigid, the trespass-versus-taking inquiry focuses on whether government actions are “[i]solated 

physical invasions, not undertaken pursuant to a granted 

right of access, [which] are properly assessed as individual 

torts rather than appropriations of a property right.” Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 2078. For example, up to three 

flooding events “by themselves” do not qualify as (even a 

temporary) taking. Nat’l By-Prod., Inc. v. United States, 

405 F.2d 1256, 1273 (Ct. Cl. 1969) (collecting cases); see 

Ridge Line, 346 F.3d at 1357 (“[I]solated invasions, such as

one or two floodings . . . do not make a taking . . . but repeated invasions of the same type have often been held to 

result in an involuntary servitude.” (quoting Eyherabide v. 

United States, 345 F.2d 565, 569 (Ct. Cl. 1965))); see also 

Cary v. United States, 552 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

(collecting cases distinguishing permanent and intermittent flooding from isolated incidents). In sum, this inquiry 

essentially distinguishes a physical appropriation from an 

“occupancy that is transient and relatively inconsequential,” such as a “truckdriver parking on someone’s vacant 

land to eat lunch.” Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 

1377 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, Arkansas Game & Fish II’s multi-factor 

test does not apply to permanently recurring flooding. Instead, such flooding that foreseeably or intentionally 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 21 Filed: 06/16/2023
22 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

results from government action is a categorical physical 

taking. See Ridge Line, 346 F.3d at 1355–56. To be clear, 

we do not alter or amend our trespass-versus-takings jurisprudence or question the applicability of Arkansas Game & 

Fish II to temporary floodings. Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 

2078 (“[O]ur holding does nothing to efface the distinction 

between trespass and takings. Isolated physical invasions, 

not undertaken pursuant to a granted right of access, are 

properly assessed as individual torts rather than appropriations of a property right.”). Nor do we establish a hardline 

rule for establishing what is a permanent or recurring 

flooding. We simply reinforce the principle that the permanent appropriation of a flowage easement is “clear enough” 

to be on the side of a per se taking and not a trespass. See 

Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1371. 

C. Causation 

The causation inquiry in this case requires us to assess 

the proper temporal baseline for measuring whether the 

2004 Changes caused the flooding on Plaintiffs’ properties. 

The causation analysis depends on which “but for” world 

the effects of the 2004 Changes are measured against: the 

one predating the Mainstem System and BSNP under the 

1944 FCA or the world with the Mainstem System and 

BSNP as it existed between 1967 and 2004. The but for 

world with the Mainstem System and BSNP, i.e., comparing the circumstances after the 2004 Changes to the circumstances right before those changes, is the proper one 

for assessing causation. 

The Court of Federal Claims determined the proper inquiry for causation was to compare “the ‘but for’ world before the Corps began to undertake significant actions to 

return the River to a more natural state in 2004 [with] the 

current post-2004 world” that reflects the Corps’ 2004

Changes. Reconsideration Decision, 142 Fed. Cl. at 232. 

Applying that baseline, the trial court found the 2004 

Changes “led to more increased and more severe flooding 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 22 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 23

than would have occurred had these Changes not been 

made.” Phase I, 136 Fed. Cl. at 697. Approximately one 

month after the trial court rendered its Phase I decision, 

we issued St. Bernard Parish. In St. Bernard Parish, we

reversed a trial court’s determination that the government 

caused a taking by flooding because it had built a navigation channel that “create[d] a risk of flooding”—a determination we held to violate causation principles because 

“subsequent government action designed to mitigate that 

risk” was wholly “ignored” in the plaintiff’s proof of a taking. 887 F.3d at 1364 (emphasis added). Based on that 

decision, the Government filed a motion for reconsideration, even though what the Government seeks to build into 

the “but for” world here is not government flood-reducing 

actions after the challenged government flood-increasing 

action (as in St. Bernard Parish), but, instead, government 

flood-reducing actions that were taken before––indeed, a 

very long time before—the challenged government flood-increasing actions. The trial court denied the motion, determining St. Bernard Parish did not undermine its causation 

analysis, explaining that, under the legal authority that 

governs this distinct situation, the proper baseline for the 

causation analysis was the world just before the 2004 

Changes, and not before the Mainstem System and BSNP 

projects, because the 2004 Changes were “outside the contemplation of the Corps” when the much earlier Mainstem 

System and BSNP were planned. Reconsideration Decision, 142 Fed. Cl. at 232. 

The Government argues the trial court’s baseline is 

wrong, Appellant’s Opening Br. at 15–18, 26–34, because 

it did not “consider both [flood] risk-increasing and [flood] 

risk-decreasing government actions.” See St. Bernard Parish, 887 F.3d at 1365. The Government argues the proper 

analysis is to compare the current world (i.e., with the 2004 

flood risk-increasing action) to the but for world where the 

Corps never improved the River under the 1944 FCA (i.e., 

without the Mainstem System and BSNP). Plaintiffs 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 23 Filed: 06/16/2023
24 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

respond that the trial court properly compared the current 

post-2004 River to that which existed right before the Government modified the Mainstem System and BSNP to return the River to its natural state. Resp. Br. and CrossAppeal Br. at 30–47. They argue St. Bernard Parish does 

not apply because of the Hardwicke exception, which St. 

Bernard Parish itself recognizes as addressing the situation where “[flood] risk-reducing government action preceded the [flood] risk-increasing action,” in which case “the 

[flood] risk-reducing action would only be considered in assessing causation if the risk-increasing action was ‘contemplated’ at the time of the [flood] risk-reducing action.” 887 

F.3d at 1367 n.14 (quoting John B. Hardwicke Co. v. United 

States, 467 F.2d 488, 490–91 (Ct. Cl. 1972)) (emphasis 

added). And under the Hardwicke exception, itself wellfounded in Supreme Court authority, the trial court’s causation standard is correct, they argue, because the 2004 

Changes would not have been contemplated when the FCA 

was enacted in 1944. Resp. Br. and Cross-Appeal Br. at 

47–49. Plaintiffs are correct that the Hardwicke exception 

applies and that the Court of Federal Claims did not clearly 

err in applying it to this case.

In determining whether the effects of the Mainstem 

System and BSNP are excluded from assessing whether

the 2004 Changes caused flooding on Plaintiffs’ properties, 

we examine whether a reasonable property owner at the 

time the taking occurred would have understood the 2004 

Changes to be “probably within the scope of the project [i.e., 

the 1944 FCA] from the time the Government was committed to” the project. See United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 

369, 377 (1943); Hardwicke, 467 F.2d at 490 (quoting 

United States v. Reynolds, 397 U.S. 14, 18 (1970)). There 

is no bright line rule for determining whether an action 

was probably within the scope of the project. Reynolds, 397 

U.S. at 21 (stating Miller’s “application to any particular 

set of facts requires discriminating judgment”). Satisfying 

the Miller rule does not require that the 2004 Changes 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 24 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 25

were explicitly part of the original plans for the 1944 FCA. 

Id. The Government’s representations regarding the scope 

of the project, the foreseeability of the action, and the 

amount of time that has passed between the original action, i.e., the 1944 FCA, and the action allegedly giving rise 

to liability, i.e., the 2004 Changes, are also relevant. The 

Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits consider some or all of these factors. See United States v. 62.17 

Acres of Land, More or Less, in Jasper Cnty., 538 F.2d 670, 

680 (5th Cir. 1976) (listing factors); United States v. 

Crance, 341 F.2d 161, 165–66 (8th. Cir. 1965) (determining 

government’s second alleged taking was within scope of 

first taking because recreational areas adjacent to dam 

were “contemplated . . . from [the project’s] inception” and 

government did not make any representations to contrary); 

United States v. Eastman, 528 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Oregon 

1981), aff’d and opinion adopted, 714 F.2d 76 (9th Cir. 

1983); United States v. 49.01 Acres of Land, More or Less, 

Situated in Osage Cnty., 669 F.2d 1364, 1369 (10th Cir. 

1982) (stating that “[l]ength of time between commencement of a project and condemnation of property may be a 

factor in determining reasonableness of a landowner’s belief” that their property was not within scope of project); 

Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 

1981) (adopting Fifth Circuit decisions issued prior to September 30, 1981). 

The Government argues that under Hardwicke, if the 

government provides flood protection to any land, then “an 

eventual return to the pre-project status quo” must be contemplated. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 31; Oral Arg. at 

6:57–8:04. In other words, the Government argues it may 

always reinundate land with flooding (or at least increase 

the risk of flooding) as long as at some point in time it decreased the risk of flooding to that land. That position is 

contrary to Miller. It fails to acknowledge that Miller (and 

thus Hardwicke) provide that the 2004 changes, if uncontemplated as within the scope of the 1944 FCA, may be 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 25 Filed: 06/16/2023
26 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

assessed for causation without regard to the effects of the 

Mainstem System and BSNP. If the 2004 Changes that 

caused flooding were not “within the scope of the [1944 

FCA]” that provided flood protection, then the Government 

is not immune from liability for flooding Plaintiffs’ land by 

virtue of having constructed the Mainstem System and 

BSNP in the first place. Miller, 317 U.S at 377; see Hardwicke, 467 F.2d at 393; 3 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 

8A.01[11.B] (2022) (“Even though the condemnee’s land 

may have experienced an appreciation in value as a result 

of a proposed public improvement, the condemnee may be 

able to recover the enhanced value if the condemnee can 

establish that his or her property was outside the scope of 

the government’s project at the time the government initially committed to the project.”). The Government’s proposed rule also ignores the Fifth Amendment’s roots in 

both principles of fairness and equity and doctrines of property law. United States v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 365 

U.S. 624, 631 (1961); United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488, 

490 (1973); see Arkansas Game & Fish II, 568 U.S. at 31 

(“The Takings Clause is designed to bar Government from 

forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in 

all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a 

whole.” (quotation marks omitted)). In short, Miller and 

Hardwicke teach that if the government provides value to 

landowners by virtue of a first project, it cannot subsequently take property under the scope of a second project 

not contemplated by the first project without providing just 

compensation. The Court of Federal Claims did not err in 

applying Hardwicke and Miller to this case. 

Nor did the Court of Federal Claims clearly err in finding that a reasonable property owner, at the time the Government took a permanent flowage easement, would have 

understood the 2004 Changes, which were required to comply with the ESA, to not have been contemplated as part of 

the Mainstem System and BSNP flood-control projects 

completed by 1967 pursuant to the 1944 FCA. The Corps’ 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 26 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 27

primary objectives for its actions under the FCA were for 

flood control, even to the detriment of other objectives. The

“United States expected people to be protected from flooding along the River following the construction of the Mainstem System and BSNP.” Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 591. 

Indeed, based on these flood-control expectations, agricultural production increased and developers moved in. 

J.A. 50,681 (National Academy of Sciences report); J.A. 

52,886 (National Park Service report). Though wildlife and 

recreation were considered as part of the flood control program, before 2004, they were prioritized below flood control. See Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d at 1027. 

Further, because the 2004 Changes were antithetical 

to the original FCA priorities, it stands to reason the Corps, 

and certainly property owners, would not have contemplated eliminating the flood control functions of the BSNP 

by reverting its vast physical modifications.9 Indeed, the 

flooding caused by the 2004 Changes would not have occurred but for the separate, intervening obligations Congress enacted under the ESA. It was not until after 

significant intervention by the FWS, which the Corps resisted, that the Corps implemented the 2004 Changes. In

other words, under the 1944 FCA, the Corps never contemplated reconnecting the River to its floodplain after disconnecting it. It follows a fortiori that a reasonable property 

owner would not have expected the Corps to do so. 

9 While the FCA gives the Corps discretion in the 

management of the River, the Government does not dispute flood control is the FCA’s and 1979 Master Manual’s 

top priority while other considerations are secondary. See 

Oral Arg. at 4:26–43. The Eighth Circuit has held the 1979 

Master Manual to be binding on the Corps. Ubbelohde, 330 

F.3d at 1028–30; see Mo. River Sys. Litig., 421 F.3d at 628

n.6. The Government provides no reason why we should 

determine differently. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 27 Filed: 06/16/2023
28 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

This case is analogous to United States v. 172.80 Acres 

of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mercer Cnty., 350 F.2d 

957 (3d Cir. 1965). In Mercer County, the Corps built a dam 

and condemned nearby land for recreational and public facilities. Id. at 957. The government successfully negotiated with the plaintiffs for a flowage easement over about 

20 acres of their land and assured them those acres “were 

the only parts of their land that would be needed for the 

project.” Id. at 957–58. Later, the government reversed 

course and condemned an additional 80 acres, which had 

increased in value because of the dam and improvements. 

Id. In holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for the increased value attributable to the government project, the court reasoned “a purchaser 

contemplating the acquisition and private development of 

[plaintiffs’ property] . . . after . . . initiation of the reservoir 

project could reasonably anticipate that he would be able 

to devote the land to its highest economic use, enjoying advantages inherent in the proximity of the nearby government development without serious apprehension that his 

land would soon be condemned.” Id. at 959. Similarly here, 

Plaintiffs “could reasonably anticipate” that their lands, 

which were free of annualized flooding for decades, would 

not be intermittently flooded for purposes of wildlife protection based on the Government’s intervening and unrelated actions. See id. 

Contrary to the Government’s arguments on appeal, 

St. Bernard Parish is distinguishable from this case. St. 

Bernard Parish recognized that under Hardwicke, “if the 

risk-reducing government action preceded the risk-increasing action, the risk-reducing action would only be considered in assessing causation if the risk-increasing action 

was ‘contemplated’ at the time of the risk-reducing action.” 

887 F.3d at 1367 n.14 (quoting 467 F.2d at 490–91). The 

2004 Changes that increased the risk of flooding were not 

contemplated under the 1944 FCA that decreased the risk 

of flooding. And unlike here, St. Bernard Parish involved 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 28 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 29

a first government action that increased flooding risk before a second government action reduced the risk of flooding. Id. at 1367. The trial court properly held St. Bernard 

Parish does not alter the causation analysis in this case. 

The trial court properly evaluated the relevant government 

actions. We therefore see no error in the trial court’s ruling 

on this issue. 

D. Relative Benefits 

Finally, the parties dispute the applicability to this 

case and the scope of the so-called “relative benefits” doctrine, which states: “if governmental activities inflict slight 

damage upon land in one respect and actually confer great 

benefits when measured in the whole, to compensate the 

landowner further would be to grant him a special bounty.” 

United States v. Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. 256, 266–67 

(1939). After Phase I of the present case, the Government 

moved to amend its answer to include a relative benefits 

defense. See Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, 146 Fed. 

Cl. 413, 414–15 (2020) (Motion to Amend Order). The trial 

court denied the motion, reasoning, inter alia, that the 

2004 Changes were for different purposes and not contemplated in the construction of the Mainstem System and 

BSNP and that a relative benefits defense was thus unavailable. Id. at 421–23. The Government, mirroring its 

causation argument (rejected above), contends that the relative benefits doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ claims because the 

harm of the Corps’ 2004 Changes are outweighed by the 

benefits of the Mainstem System and BSNP. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 42. Plaintiffs respond that the relative benefits doctrine is inapplicable because, inter alia, it

does not take into account the benefits conferred by all government actions. Resp. Br. and Cross-Appeal Br. at 49–52. 

We agree with Plaintiffs. 

The relative benefits doctrine “is closely related to, but 

distinct from, the issue of causation.” Alford v. United 

States, 961 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As with 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 29 Filed: 06/16/2023
30 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

causation, not “all government benefits must be considered 

under the relative benefits doctrine.” Id. at 1386. Specifically, the relative benefits doctrine focuses on the benefits 

and detriments of the government actions under the same 

program. See Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. at 261–62, 266–67

(analyzing only benefits and detriments of 1928 actions 

while excluding benefits and detriments of 1883 Eads 

plan); see Jackson v. United States, 230 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1913)

(describing government’s flood protection history relevant 

to Sponenbarger); see also Alford, 961 F.3d at 1384 (finding 

decision to raise lake level and flood plaintiffs’ land caused 

less damage than if Corps allowed levee system to be 

breached); Bartz v. United States, 633 F.2d 571, 578 (Ct. 

Cl. 1980) (analyzing harms of dam operation causing raised 

water levels on adjacent farms against benefits of control 

at all other periods of same dam); Accardi v. United States, 

599 F.2d 423, 430 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (analyzing harm of river 

flow with and without single dam in operation). 

The 2004 Changes and the Mainstem System and 

BSNP were different projects under different programs

spread out over decades and directed to different purposes. 

Just as the Court in Sponenbarger analyzed the benefits 

and detriments of the 1928 flood control without regard to 

the benefits of the 1883 Eads plan, we conclude that the 

benefits of the 1944 FCA should not be weighed against the 

detriments of the 2004 Changes. See Sponenbarger, 308 

U.S. at 261–62, 266–67. We also find this case to be critically different from Alford, where plaintiffs would have 

“been far worse off” and “suffered more serious damage” 

from flooding if the government had not engaged in the alleged taking of raising the lake’s water level to prevent a 

levee breach. See 961 F.3d at 1385–86. Plaintiffs here did 

not benefit in any way from the 2004 Changes. Moreover, 

the 2004 Changes were directed to mitigating environmental and wildlife degradation while the Mainstem System 

and BSNP were directed to mitigating flooding risks. See 

id. at 1384 (“The relative benefits doctrine considers . . .

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 30 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 31

only government activities directed to mitigating the type 

of problem that caused the damage.” (emphasis added)). In 

this case, considering the Mainstem System and BSNP 

along with the 2004 Changes would nullify our application 

of Miller and Hardwicke because it would consider the effects of actions that were outside the scope of the project 

and excluded for purposes of causation. We see no error in 

the trial court’s application of the relative benefits doctrine. 

The Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over this 

case and properly applied the causation and relative benefits framework. We also clarify that permanent recurring 

floodings are per se takings. We therefore affirm the trial 

court’s findings. 

II. PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-APPEAL

Plaintiffs cross-appeal, arguing the trial court erred in 

two respects. First, they argue the Court of Federal Claims 

improperly rejected Plaintiffs’ claims for crop damages. 

Second, they argue the trial court clearly erred in finding

the Government’s actions did not cause the flooding of their 

lands in 2011, which coincided with periods of extreme runoff and flooding. We agree on both grounds. 

A. Crop Damages 

After finding the Corps caused recurring flooding on 

Plaintiffs’ land, the trial court analyzed whether Plaintiffs’ 

claims for lost crops and other property were compensable. 

Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 606–608. It held “crop losses and 

lost profits based on reduced yields, damage to structures, 

damages to equipment, flood prevention expenses, and 

flood reclamation expenses” are “consequential damages 

that are an indirect result of the taking of the flowage easement” and therefore non-compensable. Id. at 607. The 

trial court, however, awarded Plaintiff Ideker Farms “severance damages” (i.e., expenses for “mitigating damages 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 31 Filed: 06/16/2023
32 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

caused by the taking”) for costs of repairing a levee in 2010. 

Id. at 608. 

Plaintiffs argue their lost crops are compensable under 

the Fifth Amendment because the diminution of property 

value is a separate compensable interest from the destruction of their crops. Specifically, while the flowage easement 

awarded by the trial court compensates Plaintiffs for the 

taking caused by future flooding, it does not compensate 

them for past damages. Resp. Br. and Cross-Appeal Br. at 

72–74 (citing Arkansas Game & Fish III, 736 F.3d at 1370). 

The Government responds that the trial court did not err 

because crop losses occurring prior to a taking date result 

from a trespass, not a taking. Appellant’s Reply Br. and 

Cross-Appeal Resp. Br. at 42–46 (citing Barnes, 538 F.2d 

at 874). 

The Fifth Amendment protects private property “without any distinction between different types.” Horne v. Dep’t 

of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 358–59 (2015) (citation omitted). 

“The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your 

home.” Id. (citation omitted). Just compensation requires 

putting the property owner “in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property had not been taken.” Olson v. United

States, 292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934). As a result, courts must 

determine whether the Government appropriated a property interest and ensure the owner is compensated for that 

interest in awarding damages. Damages are not limited to 

the “time of the alleged taking” and include “past, present, 

and prospective” damages. Ridge Line, 346 F.3d at 1359. 

We measure “the fair market value of [the] property at the 

time of the taking.” Yuba Nat. Res., Inc. v. United States, 

904 F.2d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (alteration in original)

(citation omitted). The parties do not dispute that crops 

and other equipment are property under the Fifth Amendment. The parties dispute only whether crops and other 

equipment damages are consequential damages. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 32 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 33

Damages collateral to those caused by the government’s physical appropriation of a property right are consequential damages not within the scope of the Fifth 

Amendment. See Mitchell v. United States, 267 U.S. 341, 

345 (1925) (“If the business was destroyed, the destruction 

was an unintended incident of the taking of land.”). The 

line between direct and consequential damages is drawn 

where the “owner’s relation . . . to the physical thing” ends 

and “other collateral interests which may be incident to his 

ownership” begin. United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 

U.S. 373, 378 (1945) (emphasis added). This includes, for 

example, lost profits, loss of goodwill, and the cost of moving into a new facility. Id. The government is responsible 

only for losses to the owner’s bundle of rights as distinguished from losses to other interests, including value generated from the owner’s use of property.

Plaintiffs’ crops and other personal property destroyed 

by flooding are compensable under the Fifth Amendment. 

The Court of Federal Claims determined damages “above 

and beyond the value of the flowage easement” were an “indirect result of the taking of the flowage easement.” Phase 

II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 607. The Government-induced flooding, 

however, directly took both a permanent flowage easement 

on Plaintiffs’ land and destroyed Plaintiffs’ crops.10 In 

10 Even though state law generally determines the 

scope of the property interest, Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 

2075–76; cf. Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., 143 S. Ct. 1369, 1375 

(2023) (explaining that other sources of law may govern 

what “property” is protected from takings), whether the 

crops are considered a part of the value of the real estate 

or separate personal property under state law, their value 

must be paid to the owners. 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain 

§ 5.03 (2022) (“It does not matter whether the annexations 

were affixed by operation of nature, as in the case of trees, 

herbage, water, mines, or minerals, or by artificial means, 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 33 Filed: 06/16/2023
34 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

other words, the loss of the Plaintiffs’ crops was not merely 

an injury collateral to the loss of their land; though the 

same government action caused both, it was a separate and 

independent loss of compensable property in its own right. 

Moreover, the value of crops physically appropriated is distinguishable from revenues Plaintiffs expected from unplanted seeds that were not destroyed by the flooding. See 

Oral Arg. at 32:57–33:10. Plaintiffs do not claim compensation consequential to the taking of an easement—rather, 

they seek compensation for the government’s appropriation of two distinct property interests. 

The cases the Government cites are inapposite. Barnes 

does not control and conflicts with the Court of Federal 

Claims’ findings. Barnes excluded from compensation crop 

damages that occurred after the first government-induced 

flood and before the stabilization date four years later, reasoning “crop damages sustained prior to the date of taking

. . . are the product of tortious invasions” and not a taking. 

538 F.2d at 873–74. Barnes’ conclusion that damages occurring during stabilization are not subject to taking liability is premised on the legal rule that “[g]overnmentinduced flooding not proved to be inevitably recurring occupies the category of mere consequential injury, or tort.” 

Id. at 870, 874 (citing Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 

U.S. 146 (1924)). Arkansas Game & Fish II repudiated that 

rule in reversing our holding that a taking occurs only 

such as buildings, fences, or other structures. In both 

cases, if they are acquired by eminent domain, compensation must be paid to the owner.”); see Horne, 576 U.S. at 

355, 370 (holding farmers must be given “fair market 

value” of raisins government regulation required the farmers to set aside for “reserve raisins”); United States v.

131.68 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in St. James 

Parish, 695 F.2d 872, 875–76 (5th Cir. 1983) (collecting 

cases awarding crop damages).

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 34 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 35

when flooding is “a permanent or inevitably recurring condition, rather than an inherently temporary situation.”11 

See Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 637 

F.3d 1366, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Arkansas Game & Fish I) 

(citing Barnes, 538 F.2d at 868–69, 872), rev’d and remanded, 568 U.S. 23. On remand in Arkansas Game & 

Fish III, we awarded damages for trees destroyed by temporary, intermittent government-induced floodings that occurred over a seven-year period. 736 F.3d at 1370. There 

is no material distinction between the destroyed crops here

and the damaged timber we held compensable in Arkansas 

Game & Fish III. Id. at 1367–69. Indeed, the Court of Federal Claims determined the taking began “in 2007[] when 

flooding attributable to” the Corps’ actions began. Phase 

II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 597–98. Nor is there any meaningful 

distinction between the crops destroyed by flooding and the 

levee destroyed by the same flooding that the trial court 

awarded damages for.12 

11 The Government argues Barnes is still good law because Arkansas Game & Fish II never mentioned Barnes 

nor answered whether damages occurring during stabilization are compensable. See Appellant’s Reply Br. and CrossAppeal Resp. Br. at 43. While the Government is correct 

Arkansas Game & Fish II did not expressly cite Barnes, it 

nevertheless fatally undermined Barnes’ rationale. 568 

U.S. at 38 (stating limited holding was that temporary 

flooding is not exempt from takings). Precedent is not ironclad until the Supreme Court explicitly says otherwise—“It 

is established that a later panel can recognize that the 

court’s earlier decision has been implicitly overruled as inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court authority.” 

Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp., 758 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (emphasis added). 12 It is unclear whether any Plaintiff continues to pursue losses to personal property other than crops. See Resp. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 35 Filed: 06/16/2023
36 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

Similarly, the Government’s argument that awarding 

crop damages separate from the permanent easement 

would constitute non-compensable lost profits misapprehends the distinction between the crops and the land they 

grow on. See Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl. at 607; Appellant’s Reply Br. and Cross-Appeal Resp. Br. at 45. Just because lost 

profits from operating a business are not compensable does 

not mean that the underlying property of a business is not

compensable if destroyed or otherwise taken. The former, 

but not the latter, is merely incidental to the taken property. 

Of course, that lost crops are compensable does not resolve the question of the quantum of damages. That question depends upon the nature of the crops themselves. For 

mature crops, like other forms of property, just compensation is simply the market value of the crops. Measuring

immature crops requires more work because it “not customary to buy or sell growing crops.” United States v. 

576,734 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Montgomery Cnty., 

143 F.2d 408, 409 (3d Cir. 1944). The lack of a customary 

market for immature crops does not mean the Government 

is absolved of its constitutional obligation to provide “just” 

compensation.13 See generally United States v. 

Br. and Cross-Appeal Br. at 72 (mentioning “damages to 

physical structures” in passing); Cross-Appeal Reply Br. at 

21 (discussing damage to “farm structures”); Phase I, 136 

Fed. Cl. at 747–49 (stating Plaintiff Ideker Farms’ grain 

bins and irrigation equipment were destroyed or damaged).

To the extent any Plaintiff seeks such damages, the trial 

court should apply the guidance discussed here. 

13 The trial court suggested mature crops are compensable while immature crops are not. Phase II, 151 Fed. Cl 

at 608 n.30 (citing Barnes, 572 F.2d at 874). But, as explained, Barnes excluded immature crops because they 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 36 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 37

Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U.S. 121, 123 (1950) (“But 

when market value has been too difficult to find, or when 

its application would result in manifest injustice to owner 

or public, courts have fashioned and applied other standards.”). Takings liability is not so easily avoided based on 

such formalities. Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 2076 (stating 

state-law formalities do not preclude liability). On remand, 

the trial court should calculate the value of immature crops 

based on the “probable yield at harvest had the crop not 

been destroyed” multiplied by its “market value at maturity minus costs of further cultivation, harvesting, and 

marketing” that the farmer did not incur. St. James Parish, 695 F.2d at 875–76 (collecting cases); Daily v. United 

States, 116 Ct. Cl. 723, 731 (1950); Montgomery Cnty., 143 

F.2d at 409. 

It was erroneous to exclude crop damages occurring between 2007 and 2014 from the damages calculation. We 

therefore vacate the Court of Federal Claims’ determination that Plaintiffs’ claims for lost crop damages were not 

compensable and remand for further fact finding consistent 

with this opinion. 

B. 2011 Flooding

Plaintiffs next argue the Court of Federal Claims erred 

in finding the Government did not cause flood damages in 

2011. In many respects, the flooding in 2011 was unique 

compared to the flooding in other years. Most notably, the 

volume of runoff in the River basin in 2011 was the most in 

over a century. The trial court found that the Corps’ “System releases in 2011 were not part of the single purpose” of 

protecting endangered species and that Plaintiffs therefore 

could not establish the 2011 flooding was caused by the 

2004 Master Manual’s release requirements. Phase I, 136 

were destroyed prior to the date of taking, a fact not present here. See 572 F.2d at 874.

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 37 Filed: 06/16/2023
38 IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US

Fed. Cl. at 678, 691, 692–93. Because the trial court clearly 

erred in both findings, we vacate and remand for further 

factfinding. 

Regarding the court’s “single purpose” analysis, the 

trial court found the 2011 releases had “nothing to do with 

ESA compliance.” Id. at 691. This finding is premised on 

the narrow view that the decisions to release water in 2011 

were not based on benefiting endangered species. Id. at 

691–92. Even if that were true, this does not consider the 

effects of the 2004 Changes in the first place, which could 

have impacted the severity of the flood damage in 2011. 

The trial court also failed to consider, despite the record 

rainfall, whether the Corps’ actions increased the severity 

or duration of the 2011 flooding compared to what was attributable to record rainfall.14 Given the voluminous record and the parties’ agreement that remand is appropriate

based on our affirmance of the other legal issues in this 

case, we need not address the remaining arguments. See 

Oral Arg. at 37:45–38:59, 43:44–44:14. We vacate and remand. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given above, 

we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ takings claims. We vacate the trial 

court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the Government did not causally contribute to the 2011 flooding 

14 The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs presented, 

and thus preserved, an argument concerning the apportionment of damages alleged to be attributable to the 2004 

Changes as opposed to the excessive runoff in 2011. On 

remand, the Court of Federal Claims should consider, on a 

plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis, whether such an argument was 

raised and preserved. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 38 Filed: 06/16/2023
IDEKER FARMS, INC. v. US 39

and remand for further consideration consistent with this 

opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs awarded to Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants. 

Case: 21-1849 Document: 95 Page: 39 Filed: 06/16/2023