Opinion ID: 2651323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The St. Joseph Harbor Jetties

Text: Beginning in the 1830s, the Corps began constructing two major harbor jetties on Lake Michigan near the St. Joseph River. These jetties protrude outward from the BANKS v. US 3 mouth of the river into the body of the lake. They were periodically extended until 1903, when they reached their current length. After 1903, major construction on the jetties ceased until 1950, when the Corps began a project to encase the jetties in steel-sheet piling. This project was completed in 1989. Appellants (also referred to as “Plaintiffs”) are landowners along approximately four and one-half miles of the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, south of the jetties. This shoreline is eroding naturally, but Appellants allege the jetties block the flow of sand and sediment from the river and the lakeshore north of their properties. Specifically, they argue that the structures interrupt the natural littoral drift within the lake, leading to increased erosion on their properties, amounting to an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Corps has also been concerned with erosion along the Lake Michigan shoreline. In 1958, the Corps released a “Beach Erosion Control Study” (the “1958 Study”) that examined the effects of beach erosion on Berrien County, Michigan, where the St. Joseph jetties are located. This Report documented increased erosion in certain areas as a result of the jetties and recommended that a nourishment program “be initiated at the earliest practicable date.” J.A. 5939. This program did not target Appellants’ land because the land was then private and ineligible for federal funding. Nonetheless, the project was expected to benefit them by “restoration of normal littoral drift” in the area. J.A. 5959. In 1968, Congress enacted the “Rivers and Harbors Act,” which authorized the Secretary of the Army to “investigate, study, and construct projects for the prevention or mitigation of shore damages attributable to Federal navigation works.” River and Harbor Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-483, § 111, 82 Stat. 731, 735 (1968) (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 426i (2012)). BANKS v. US 4 Pursuant to this authority, the Corps proposed a plan to mitigate the erosion caused by the jetties by dumping sand into feeder beaches located to the north of Appellants’ properties. This endeavor was projected to “provide the quantities of littoral material interrupted by the [jetties] to the shores downdrift.” J.A. 5061. Implemented in 1976, the mitigation plan “involved placing fine sand from the harbor maintenance dredging on the downdrift [southerly] beaches.” Banks v. United States (Banks I), 49 Fed. Cl. 806, 818 (2001), rev’d, 314 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). After fifteen years of beach nourishment, the mitigation efforts shifted to using coarser sediment, in the hope it would have a longer retention time than fine sand. Eventually, in 1995, the Corps dumped “barge-loads of large rocks into the lake.” Id. at 819. In relation to these projects, the Corps released a series of reports in 1973, 1996, 1997, and 1999 on the erosive effects of the jetties and the progress of mitigation efforts. There is also an April 20, 1998, newspaper article relating to the erosion. The 1973 Report “has been described, without contradiction, ‘as the first credible look at the St. Joseph Harbor structures in estimating the total amount of material trapped in the structures.’” Banks v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 603, 612 (2007) (“Liability Op.”). The Corps started implementing mitigation programs after this Report. The 1996 Report concluded that the St. Joseph shoreline was “in a state of recession” and that the erosion that occurs during lakebed downcutting 1 is “permanent.” 1 Downcutting is explained as follows: “If the sand cover to glacial till is depleted, the energy of the waves and the shifting of the sand, which acts as ‘sandpaper,’ BANKS v. US 5 Larry E. Pearson, Andrew Morang & Robert B. Nairn, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Geologic Effects on Behavior of Beachfill and Shoreline Stability for Southeast Lake Michigan 9, 48 (1996) (“1996 Report”). However, the Report also indicated uncertainty regarding the effects of mitigation efforts: the mitigation program “may provide at least partial protection to the underlying glacial till along and offshore of the feeder beach and the waterworks revetment section of shore. It is unclear whether the beach nourishment is having any negative or positive impact along the 3.5-km revetment section of shoreline south of the waterworks.” Id. at 49; see also Banks II, 314 F.3d at 1307. The 1997 Report observed that some areas were benefitting from nourishment but in other areas the results were “questionable.” J.A. 5516. The 1999 Report—made public in 2000—identified Lake Michigan as a cohesive, rather than sandy, shoreline, and stated that “‘[e]rosion of the consolidated layer [underlayer of a cohesive coastline] is generally irreversible.’” 2 Banks I, 49 can cause the lake bottom to erode and thus lower in a process referred to as ‘downcutting.’” Liability Op., 78 Fed. Cl. at 622. 2 “The composition of the lakebed is relevant because the composition affects erosion and mitigation processes.” Liability Op., 78 Fed. Cl. at 622. A sandy lakebed is made up of materials that are loosely deposited, or easily dispersed. Id. at 621. Thus, according to the Government’s expert, “as long as the sand supply south of the harbor is restored to the pre-harbor levels, then we can assume directly that the erosion will remain the same as pre-harbor levels, all other things aside.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Conversely, in a cohesive lakebed, the materials are bound together and are not “freely mobile.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Cohesive shores are thus “more BANKS v. US 6 Fed. Cl. at 823 (quoting J.A. 5637). The 1999 Report also found that the effects of the nourishment programs were limited because the programs were based on the assumption that the coastline was sandy, with an unlimited sand supply, and not cohesive. Appellants relied on the 1999 Report in arguing their claims were not time-barred and stated that “the language in this [R]eport is the first clear indication of permanent damage caused by the harbor structures.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).