Court Opinion

ID: 9368185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 01:00:29.074872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.132021
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049        Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                      February 2, 2023
                                 No. 21-20174                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   Fort Bend County; Fort Bend County Drainage
   District; Cinco Municipal Utility District No. 1,

                                                          Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                     versus

   United States Army Corps of Engineers; Lieutenant
   General Todd T. Semonite; Colonel Lars Zetterstrom;
   Richard Long,

                                                       Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:18-CV-1739

   Before Dennis, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge:
         This case arises from major flooding events in the Houston area in
   2016 and 2017. Local political subdivisions sued the United States Army
   Corps of Engineers, seeking compliance with alleged regulatory obligations.
   The district court dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. We REVERSE and REMAND
   for further proceedings.
Case: 21-20174      Document: 00516633049           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

           FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          The Flood Control Act of 1936 authorized the United States Army
   Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) and other federal agencies, in cooperation
   with the states, to create and manage dams, levees, and other measures for
   the purpose of flood control. Flood Control Act of 1936, Pub. L. No. 74-738,
   49 Stat. 1570, 1570 (1936).
          The next year, the Corps’ commanding general, who was a long-ago
   predecessor of defendant Todd Semonite, submitted a lengthy report to the
   Secretary of War about past flooding in what was referred to as the Buffalo
   Bayou Watershed; the Secretary of War then transmitted the report to the
   Speaker of the House. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL AND BUFFALO BAYOU,
   TEX., H.R. NO. 75-456 (1937) (Chief of Engineers’ report, transmitted by
   Secretary of War to Speaker of the House), reprinted in 10180 U.S. CONG.
   SERIAL SET (1938). The report stated: “Extensive areas both in and above
   the city of Houston are inundated” by the waters. Id. at 2. The Corps’ com-
   mander “recommend[ed] the improvement of Buffalo Bayou and its tribu-
   taries . . . to provide for the control of floods, the protection of the city of
   Houston from flood damages, and [for other purposes] by means of detention
   reservoirs” and other measures “which may be found advisable.” Id. at 4–5.
          In 1938, the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Project was among the
   many authorized by Congress to protect areas around the country from the
   impacts of flooding. River and Harbor Act of 1938, Pub. L. No. 75-685, 52
   Stat. 802, 802, 804 (1938).
          We quote a key document in the record that identifies later Congres-
   sional enactments:
          Addicks and Barker Dams were authorized by the 1939 Flood
          Control Act, a modification of the 1938 River and Harbor Act,
          . . . which authorized flood control work in the Buffalo Bayou
          watershed. The project was further modified by the Flood

                                          2
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049              Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                         No. 21-20174

           Control Act of 1954, House Document No. 250, 83rd Con-
           gress, 2nd Session, which authorized straightening, enlarging,
           and lining where necessary, on Buffalo, Brays, and White Oak
           Bayous.
   U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, GALVESTON DISTRICT, WATER
   CONTROL MANUAL, SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN, at 3-1 (2012).
           In sum, the project that had its beginnings in 1938 led to the construc-
   tion of two dams and two associated reservoirs: the Addicks and the Barker
   Reservoirs. The fundamental issue in the case is whether the Corps has vio-
   lated any enforceable, legal obligation in the management of these dams and
   reservoirs.
           A potential source for obligations imposed on the Corps is the 2012
   Water Control Manual (“WCM”) adopted by the Corps for flood control in
   the relevant watershed. The WCM describes its raison d'être:
           The purpose of this manual is to document the Addicks and
           Barker Reservoir regulation plans, to present detailed infor-
           mation to higher authority, and to give guidance to personnel
           concerned with or responsible for the regulation of Addicks
           and Barker Reservoirs during the life of the projects.
   Id. at 1-1. Thus, the WCM applies to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs that
   are at issue in this appeal and not more generally to flood-control projects.
   The Corps revises the WCM periodically. 1 The 2012 version discussed in
   this case, with its tables, data on various subjects, photographs, and other

           1
             The November 2012 WCM states that the “previous edition” was in April 1962.
   Id. at i. We do not know if other editions preceded 1962, though no other editions are
   mentioned. Id. at 1-1. One of the questions on this appeal is whether a 2019 version of the
   WCM has mooted any part of the case that challenges provisions of the 2012 WCM. The
   answer turns in part on whether the 2019 revision was sufficiently substantial to moot
   claims under the 2012 version. It also matters if the Corps issued a revised WCM for the
   purpose of mooting the case. More, later, on those possibilities.

                                               3
Case: 21-20174       Document: 00516633049           Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                      No. 21-20174

   information, is 157 pages in length. Other sources for potential duties im-
   posed on the Corps will be discussed later.
          Generally, the two reservoirs are empty. The gates that run along the
   dams remain open. During heavy rainfall, however, when flooding occurs or
   is expected downstream, the WCM instructs the Corps to close the gates and
   temporarily detain floodwater in the reservoirs. WATER CONTROL MAN-
   UAL at 7-4.   If the water in the reservoirs reaches a set height, the Corps must
   monitor the inflow to the reservoirs from upstream areas. Id. at 7-4, 7-5. If
   the pool elevation and inflows are severe enough, the Corps releases the
   floodwater at a controlled rate into the Buffalo Bayou. Id.
          The plaintiffs — Fort Bend County, Fort Bend County Drainage Dis-
   trict, and Cinco Municipal Utility District No. 1 (the “County Parties” or
   “Plaintiffs”) — are political subdivisions of Texas that own or control prop-
   erty upstream of the Barker Reservoir in Harris County. They allege the
   Corps designed and constructed the reservoirs to have a maximum design
   capacity (“MDP”) to detain federally controlled floodwater that exceeds the
   boundary of land within the reservoirs that is owned by the United States or
   for which the government has a legal right of use. The parties refer, and thus
   so shall we, to such property as “government owned land” or “GOL.”
   Moreover, according to the County Parties, the Corps’ internal documents
   dating back to 1980 state the Corps is obligated to acquire additional land to
   comply with internal policies, but the Corps never requested authorization
   from Congress to purchase the additional land that would have brought GOL
   up to the MDP. Further, the Corps allegedly adopted the WCM with proce-
   dures and standing instructions that failed to address the problem of flooding
   on the non-GOL upstream from the reservoirs, which they allegedly knew
   would occur “in the event of a maximum design weather event.” In fact, the

                                           4
Case: 21-20174      Document: 00516633049          Page: 5   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

   procedures adopted in the WCM enable the Corps to impound floodwater on
   non-GOL.
          Flooding disastrously occurred during the “Tax Day Flood” that be-
   gan on April 15, 2016. It reoccurred after Hurricane Harvey in 2017 when
   the Corps impounded floodwater on non-GOL upstream from the reservoirs.
   The floods caused the County Parties’ “property, facilities, and equipment
   and that of their residents [to become] involuntary repositories for unsanitary
   Reservoir water for an extended period” at costs the County Parties allege
   were in the millions of dollars. The floods also forced residents to relocate
   outside of the county, which allegedly caused a significant reduction in the
   County Parties’ tax revenues.
          In May 2018, the County Parties filed suit against the Corps in the
   United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. They as-
   serted there was jurisdiction for the suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, and
   sought review of agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
   (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706. They challenged the Corps’ adoption of
   the WCM without including procedures to prevent the flooding of their prop-
   erty, the Corps’ failure to revise the WCM after the 2016 and 2017 floods,
   and the Corps’ failure to acquire their lands when the Corps adopted the
   WCM and after the floods. The County Parties sought injunctive and declar-
   atory relief that would prevent the Corps from detaining floodwater on non-
   GOL and implementing the portions of the WCM that require the Corps to
   retain water on those lands.
          After filing this suit, the County Parties filed a Freedom of Infor-
   mation Act (“FOIA”) request to obtain the administrative record of each of
   the three matters on which they sued, i.e., adoption of the WCM and the two
   failures to act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552. While the FOIA request was pending, the
   County Parties filed a motion for jurisdictional discovery to obtain the Corps’

                                          5
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049           Page: 6   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

   regulations, internal documents interpreting those regulations, and deposi-
   tions of Corps officials. The Corps opposed the motion, arguing discovery
   was unnecessary to determine the pure question of law of whether the Corps
   had a duty to act under the Corps’ internal regulations. Some of those regu-
   lations, though, were unpublished and otherwise unavailable. The County
   Parties responded that they were seeking discovery of the regulations and
   other relevant evidence necessary to show the Corps had a legal duty to act.
   Meanwhile, the Corps responded to the County Parties’ FOIA request, stat-
   ing the administrative record had not yet been identified for the agency ac-
   tions and the request for the regulations would be answered later. It appears,
   though, that the Corps never provided documents in response to the FOIA
   requests for the administrative record for the three agency actions at issue in
   this case.
          The same day the County Parties filed their motion for jurisdictional
   discovery, the Corps moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
   Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Corps argued the court lacked subject
   matter jurisdiction because the complaint was seeking relief for a taking by
   the federal government, a claim which had to be brought in the Court of Fed-
   eral Claims (“Claims Court”). The Corps argued, in the alternative, the
   complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, because the com-
   plaint failed to identify any discrete, mandatory duty that the Corps failed to
   perform, which is required to compel agency action under Section 706(1).
          The district court denied the County Parties’ motion for discovery as
   moot because the FOIA request had been “answered.” Two days later, the
   district court ordered the Corps to “furnish a one-page statement that
   describes — in clear, practical terms — what it did, why it did it, and the
   consequences of alternative responses.” The Corps responded. Almost a
   year later, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. It held the
   dispute was one for the Claims Court. The County Parties timely appealed.

                                         6
Case: 21-20174      Document: 00516633049           Page: 7    Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

                                  DISCUSSION
          The County Parties have identified three issues on appeal: (1) whether
   the district erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their
   APA claims; (2) whether the district court erred in dismissing the case for
   failure to state a claim; and (3) whether the case should be reassigned to
   another judge if remanded. We will address each issue separately.
          “We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to
   Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) de novo.” Alabama-
   Coushatta Tribe of Tex. v. United States, 757 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2014).
   When reviewing a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(1) and a Rule 12(b)(6)
   motion to dismiss, we start with the jurisdictional challenge before
   addressing the challenge on the merits. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d
   158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
          I.     Subject matter jurisdiction
          The district court dismissed the action under Rule 12(b)(1),
   concluding the Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the County
   Parties’ claims. The County Parties disagree, asserting the United States has
   waived sovereign immunity in this case under 5 U.S.C. § 702. They also
   argue the Corps’ actions are reviewable under 5 U.S.C. § 704.
          In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss where the district court
   relied only on the face of the complaint, as here, “our review is limited to
   determining whether the district court’s application of the law is correct.”
   Rollerson v. Brazos River Harbor Navigation Dist., 6 F.4th 633, 639 (5th Cir.
   2021) (quotation marks and citations omitted). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to
   dismiss “should be granted only if it appears certain the plaintiff[s] cannot
   prove any set of facts that would entitle [them] to recovery.” Morris v.
   Thompson, 852 F.3d 416, 419 (5th Cir. 2017). The parties asserting federal

                                          7
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049           Page: 8   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                       No. 21-20174

   subject matter jurisdiction bear the burden of proving a court has such
   jurisdiction. See Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Tex., 757 F.3d at 487.
          The County Parties rely on two APA sections. We examine both.
                 a.      Section 702
          “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal
   Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475
   (1994). Waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of
   the sovereign. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Tex., 757 F.3d at 488. The terms
   of those waivers, set forth by Congress, define the parameters of federal
   courts’ subject matter jurisdiction over actions against the Government.
   Wilkerson v. United States, 67 F.3d 112, 118 (5th Cir. 1995).
          The County Parties contend the United States has waived its
   sovereign immunity under this section of the APA:
          A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or
          adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the
          meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review
          thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief
          other than money damages . . . shall not be dismissed . . . on the
          ground that it is against the United States.
   5 U.S.C. § 702. This section “waives sovereign immunity for actions against
   federal government agencies, seeking nonmonetary relief, if the agency
   conduct is otherwise subject to judicial review.” Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of
   Tex., 757 F.3d at 488 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
          A party has standing to sue under Section 702 when two requirements
   are met. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 882–83 (1990). First,
   plaintiffs “must identify some ‘agency action,’” which is the basis for judicial
   review. Id. at 882. The APA defines “agency action” to include “an agency
   rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or

                                            8
Case: 21-20174          Document: 00516633049                Page: 9       Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                            No. 21-20174

   failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). When the judicial review sought is
   “under the general review provisions of the APA, the ‘agency action’ in
   question must be ‘final agency action.’” Lujan, 497 U.S. at 882 (quoting 5
   U.S.C. § 704). Second, plaintiffs must show they have “‘suffer[ed] legal
   wrong’ because of the challenged agency action” or that they have been
   “‘adversely affected or aggrieved’ by that action ‘within the meaning of a
   relevant statute.’” Id. at 883 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 702).
            The Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative one,
   identifies three agency actions: (1) the Corps’ adoption of the WCM without
   including procedures to prevent the flooding of the County’s property; (2)
   the Corps’ failure to revise the WCM following the 2016 and 2017 floods;
   and (3) the Corps’ failure to acquire the Plaintiffs’ lands when the WCM was
   adopted and after the floods. The Corps conceded before the district court
   that the adoption of the WCM is final agency action. 2 The other actions are
   “failures to act” under the APA. In addition, the complaint identifies
   economic harms that are said to be fairly traceable to the procedures in the
   WCM and the Corps’ failure to acquire additional lands.
           The district court concluded the requested relief was equivalent to
   “money damages.” See 5 U.S.C. § 702. Whether that is correct depends on
   the application of the following standard:
           Our cases have long recognized the distinction between an
           action at law for damages — which are intended to provide a
           victim with monetary compensation for an injury to his person,

           2
            The Corps argued the following in its briefing in district court: “Because Fort
   Bend’s real alleged injuries sound in tort or takings theories, it is not clear . . . whether Fort
   Bend’s injuries would be redressable even if its APA challenge to the [WCM] [was]
   successful. Accordingly, the Corps reserves the right to challenge Fort Bend’s standing if
   any claims are allowed to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage.” The Corps has not
   discussed standing in its briefing on appeal.

                                                   9
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049           Page: 10   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

          property, or reputation — and an equitable action for specific
          relief — which may include . . . “the recovery of specific
          property or monies, ejectment from land, or injunction either
          directing or restraining the defendant officer’s actions.”
   Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 893 (1988) (quoting Larson v. Domestic
   & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 688 (1949)) (emphasis omitted). “The
   fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to another is
   not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief as ‘money damages.’” Id.
          The operative complaint requests three types of relief: (1) an
   injunction preventing the Corps from unconstitutionally impounding
   floodwater on non-GOL and/or from applying the portions of the WCM that
   enable the Corps to do so; (2) a declaratory judgment that the Corps’
   identified actions are unlawful and should be set aside under 5 U.S.C. §
   706(2); and (3) “[s]uch other and further relief, legal or equitable, to which
   [the County Parties] may show themselves to be justly entitled.” Other relief
   includes compelling the Corps to update its WCM and acquire additional
   land under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), as the Plaintiffs pled elsewhere in their
   complaint.
          The Corps urges us to apply a prohibition on review for when there is
   “any other statute that grants consent to suit [that] expressly or impliedly
   forbids the relief which is sought.” See 5 U.S.C. § 702. According to the
   Corps, relief is prohibited by sections of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§
   1346(a)(2), 1491(a). That Act grants concurrent jurisdiction in the Claims
   Court and federal district courts over any claims for damages against the
   United States, not exceeding $10,000, founded upon the Constitution,
   federal statute, or executive regulation, or upon any government contract. Id.
   § 1346(a)(2). The Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction when the action
   seeks monetary relief exceeding $10,000. Id. § 1491(a)(1); Sammons v. United
   States, 860 F.3d 296, 299 (5th Cir. 2017).

                                        10
Case: 21-20174       Document: 00516633049             Page: 11      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                        No. 21-20174

           The district court concluded the Tucker Act applied and the Claims
   Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the action because the case “in its soul”
   arises under the Takings Clause. A takings “claim is ‘founded upon the
   Constitution’ and within the jurisdiction of the Court of [Federal] Claims to
   hear and determine.” Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2170 (2019)
   (quoting United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 267 (1946)). The potential
   damages alleged by the complaint clearly exceed $10,000, which would place
   exclusive jurisdiction with the Claims Court.
           The County Parties argue the complaint does not allege a takings per
   se and instead seeks to compel the Corps to comply with its internal
   regulations.     The complaint alleges they are entitled to injunctive,
   declaratory, and mandamus relief under Section 706(1) and 706(2) of the
   APA, relying upon the Corps’ internal regulations.                  Nonetheless, the
   complaint reveals that the County Parties attempt to support some of their
   APA claims under the Takings Clause. Specifically, when pleading that the
   complained of actions are “contrary to constitutional right” under 5 U.S.C.
   § 706(2)(B), the complaint relies upon the Due Process 3 and Takings Clauses
   of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has prohibited federal courts
   from setting aside agency action as violating the Takings Clause under
   Section 706(2)(B). Knick, 139 S. Ct. at 2179. Such claims are unavailable
   when the property owner may obtain compensation in the Claims Court. Id.

           3
              In their opposition to the Corps’ motion to dismiss, the County Parties argued
   their APA claims were supported by the Due Process Clause. On appeal, the County
   Parties have not renewed any arguments about Due Process. They therefore have forfeited
   any argument that the district court erred by concluding it lacked subject matter
   jurisdiction over claims arising under the Due Process Clause. See Williams v. Henagan,
   595 F.3d 610, 615 (5th Cir. 2010).

                                              11
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049              Page: 12       Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                          No. 21-20174

           Consequently, the County Parties may not rely on the Takings Clause
   to plead their APA claims. 4 The only relief that explicitly involves the
   expenditure of money is the demand that the Corps be ordered to acquire
   additional land. Even though this would require the Corps to pay money to
   the Plaintiffs, that fact alone is not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief
   as money damages. See Bowen, 487 U.S. at 893. Indeed, the complaint alleges
   the Corps is required to acquire additional land to comply with its internal
   regulations. We have held that “where the statute in question specifically
   mandates the payment of money,” the suit may go forward under Section
   702. Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 359 (5th Cir. 2009). That is because
   such relief is prospective and cannot be characterized as “compensatory
   relief . . . designed to substitute for an injury to the plaintiff’s person,
   property, or reputation.” Id. So too, here, the County Parties allege the
   agency’s internal regulations mandate specific action, and an order by a court
   would direct the agency to comply. We conclude the County Parties have
   avoided pleading a Tucker Act claim.
           We now address the Corps’ several arguments that there was no
   subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
           First, the Corps argues the Supreme Court precludes equitable relief
   where a party may obtain compensatory relief for a takings claim. The
   precedents cited involve claims premised only on the Takings Clause, not
   claims alleging violations of a statute or an agency regulation per se. See, e.g.,
   Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95, 99, 104–05 (1932); Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S.

           4
              Despite concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case, the
   district court dismissed the case with prejudice. When a district court dismisses a case for
   lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the proper course is to dismiss the case without
   prejudice. Mitchell v. Bailey, 982 F.3d 937, 944 (5th Cir. 2020).

                                                12
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049               Page: 13       Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                          No. 21-20174

   609, 625–26 (1963). 5 The Corps does not cite any Supreme Court or court
   of appeals case where a Section 706 claim had to be filed in the Claims Court
   because there was also a potential takings claim. The principal claims here
   do not rely on the Takings Clause. Though it appears one claim does, that
   does not block jurisdiction over the remainder.
           Second, the Corps argues the County Parties cannot circumvent the
   limitation on equitable relief, because none of the internal regulations the
   Plaintiffs attempt to rely upon imposes a discrete, mandatory duty. The
   requirement that the County Parties identify a discrete, mandatory duty to
   compel agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) relates to whether the County
   Parties have asserted a federal cause of action. See Norton v. S. Utah
   Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 63–64 (2004) (“SUWA”); see also Mendoza-
   Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395, 399 (5th Cir. 2020). Where a defendant
   challenges the court’s jurisdiction by attacking the underlying federal cause
   of action, “the proper course of action . . . is to find that jurisdiction exists
   and deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiff’s
   case under either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56.” Montez v. Dep’t of Navy, 392
   F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404,
   415 (5th Cir. 1981)). Thus, the argument is not relevant as we consider
   jurisdiction, but we will address it when discussing the Corps’ Rule 12(b)(6)
   motion to dismiss.

           5
              The other cases cited by the Corps involving other federal statutes likewise
   involved claims premised on violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and
   those claims did not involve an alleged violation of a statute or an agency’s regulations per
   se. See Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 11–17 (1990); United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes,
   Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 126–29, 129 n.6 (1985); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 999–
   1004, 1016–19 (1984); Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 688–89 (1981); Hodel v. Va.
   Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, 294–97, 297 n.40 (1981); Duke Power
   Co. v. Carolina Env’t Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 94 n.39 (1978); Reg’l Rail Reorganization
   Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 124–28 (1974).

                                                13
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049         Page: 14    Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

          Third, the Corps also argues we should “‘pierce’ the pleadings” to
   prevent the County Parties from undercutting the jurisdiction of the Claims
   Court. We have in some instances “pierced” the pleadings to determine
   whether the substance of a claim seeking equitable relief is equivalent to a
   claim seeking monetary relief. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Hodel, 815 F.2d 352,
   361 (5th Cir. 1987). We see no basis in this suit to use such caselaw to
   reconstruct the legal claim alleged in the complaint.
          Section 702 of the APA has been satisfied in that the complaint alleges
   plaintiffs have been aggrieved by agency action, that the suit is not one for
   money damages, and that the injury arises from an officer or employee who
   has acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of law.
                 b.       Section 704 — Adequacy of the remedy
          Jurisdiction also requires the complaint meet the requirements of 5
   U.S.C. § 704. See Hinojosa v. Horn, 896 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir. 2018).
   Section 704 provides for judicial review only of “[a]gency action made
   reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other
   adequate remedy in a court.” The Corps argues the Tucker Act provides
   such an adequate remedy. We thus focus on this issue.
          For a remedy to be “adequate,” it “must provide the petitioner
   specific procedures by which the agency action can receive judicial review or
   some equivalent.” Hinojosa, 896 F.3d at 310 (quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Although the remedy “need not provide an identical review that
   the APA would provide, it must offer the same genre of relief.” Rollerson, 6
   F.4th at 642 (quotation marks and citations omitted). “Ultimately, the
   exception will apply only if there is clear and convincing evidence of
   legislative intent to create a special, alternative remedy and thereby bar APA
   review.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). “This requirement
   entails a case-specific evaluation.” Hinojosa, 896 F.3d at 310.

                                          14
Case: 21-20174       Document: 00516633049             Page: 15      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                        No. 21-20174

           The Corps argues the Tucker Act provides an adequate remedy
   because it allows the County Parties to seek compensation for any potential
   taking. Our earlier analysis reveals that argument has not convinced us.
   Although the takings claim may compensate the County Parties for past
   harms that have resulted from flooding events, it would not affect future
   flooding and further degradation to their community. “The Claims Court
   does not have the general equitable powers of a district court to grant
   prospective relief.” Bowen, 487 U.S. at 905. Only a district court can grant
   such relief. The Corps concedes such equitable relief would be precluded in
   the Claims Court.
           The Corps notes that “hundreds of landowners located near Addicks
   and Barker Dams whose properties flooded during Hurricane Harvey have
   litigated takings claims against the United States in the [Claims Court] for
   several years.” Those cases, however, were brought by private landowners
   who sought compensation for takings. See In re Upstream Addicks & Barker
   (Tex.) Flood-Control Reservoirs, 146 Fed. Cl. 219, 227–28 (2019); In re
   Downstream Addicks & Barker (Tex.) Flood-Control Reservoirs, 147 Fed. Cl.
   566, 569 (2020).        Those cases do not involve the “complex ongoing
   relationship” that may exist in a dispute between two governments, where
   the Supreme Court said it would not “assume, categorically, that a naked
   money judgment . . . will always be an adequate substitute for prospective
   relief.” See Bowen, 487 U.S. at 905.
           We hold the Tucker Act does not provide an “adequate remedy” to
   the County’s claims within the meaning of Section 704. 6

           6
             The Corps also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the County Parties’
   challenge to the adoption of the WCM is moot due to the issuance of a new WCM in
   October 2019. See Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 357 F.3d 1130,
   1135 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding challenges to a national forest plan became moot upon the

                                              15
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049               Page: 16       Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                          No. 21-20174

           II.      Dismiss for failure to state a claim
           To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain
   sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
   plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
   Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A court does not accept
   as true legal conclusions or conclusory statements. Id. A claim is facially
   plausible if the well-pled facts “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable
   inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The
   court may consider sources outside of the complaint, such as documents
   incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which the court
   may take judicial notice. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S.
   308, 322 (2007).
           The district court dismissed the County Parties’ claims under Rule
   12(b)(6). The County Parties argue they have successfully stated claims
   under Sections 706(2)(A) and 706(1) of the APA. We separately consider
   the County Parties’ claims under each section.

   issuance of a new plan). The County Parties respond that the Corps’ hyperlinked
   document and the WCM’s enabling regulation demonstrate the WCM has not been
   superseded, only updated, and that such routine updates are “capable of repetition, yet
   evading review.” See, e.g., Coliseum Square Ass’n, Inc. v. Jackson, 465 F.3d 215, 246 (5th
   Cir. 2006).
            Even though we will consider mootness arguments raised for the first time on
   appeal, see Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 718 (5th Cir. 1999), we decline to address this
   argument now. Both copies of the WCM are not in the record; the link provided by the
   Corps does not lead to the revised WCM; the issue has been minimally briefed. The Corps
   may renew this argument before the district court.

                                                16
Case: 21-20174          Document: 00516633049          Page: 17      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                        No. 21-20174

                   a.       Section 706(2)(A)
           The complaint alleges the adoption of the WCM was arbitrary and
   capricious. 7   Under the APA, we will set aside agency action that is
   “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
   with law.” § 706(2)(A). We also are to invalidate agency action that is “in
   excess of statutory . . . authority.” Id. § 706(2)(C). “Agency action is
   arbitrary and capricious if the agency relied on factors that Congress did not
   intend it to consider, failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,
   or offered an explanation counter to the evidence.” Amin v. Mayorkas, 24
   F.4th 383, 393 (5th Cir. 2022). Such review is neither sweeping nor intrusive.
   Instead, we “ask whether the agency considered the relevant facts and
   articulated a satisfactory explanation for its decision; we cannot substitute
   our judgment for the agency’s.” Id.
           The district court determined that if the Tucker Act did not apply, the
   claims still failed because there was no “mandatory, non-discretionary duty
   that the Corps did not follow.” Such a duty is necessary to show error when
   an agency has failed to act. SUWA, 542 U.S. at 64 (interpreting Section
   706(1)). The district court did not separately analyze the Plaintiffs’ one claim
   that is based on completed agency action, namely, the adoption of the WCM
   in 2012. We start there, then examine the claims based on a failure to act.
           In the district court, the Corps, in its motion to dismiss, made a
   relevant concession about the WCM:

           7
             The complaint also challenges the Corps’ failure to amend the WCM after later
   flooding events and to acquire additional land when the WCM was adopted under Section
   706(2)(A). “The APA provides relief for a failure to act in § 706(1),” not under Section
   706(2). See SUWA, 542 U.S. at 62. Since the County Parties seek to compel the agency to
   act, we conclude these claims are not cognizable under Section 706(2). See id.

                                             17
Case: 21-20174       Document: 00516633049              Page: 18       Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                         No. 21-20174

           Fort Bend has identified a third agency action it challenges: the
           adoption of the 2012 Water Control Manual for the Addicks
           and Barker reservoirs. Third Am. Compl. ¶ 19. To the extent
           Fort Bend’s Third Amended Complaint is not dismissed in its
           entirety [because of the Tucker Act], it appears that Fort
           Bend’s purported APA challenge to the Corps’ adoption of the
           Water Control Manual could be sufficient to state a claim at the
           motion to dismiss stage.
   The Corps went on to argue that claim would likely fail as a matter of
   redressability, but that is a matter for a later litigation stage.
           On appeal, the Corps acknowledges this earlier statement and that the
   WCM claim is a challenge to “final agency action,” but it then argues the
   2012 WCM was superseded by an October 2019 Manual. Consequently, the
   Corps argues, the claim about the WCM is moot. The Plaintiffs respond that
   they first learned of a supposedly new WCM in the Corps’ brief in this court,
   filed well after the alleged mooting of the claim by adoption of a new manual.
   The Plaintiffs’ brief then seeks to convince that any changes are routine,
   administrative updates that do not alter the claim.
           A claim against an agency regulation or other directive may become
   moot if the agency repeals the offending pronouncement. 8 Spell v. Edwards,
   962 F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 2020). Nonetheless, if an agency repeals a
   challenged directive but then replaces it with a substantially similar one, there

           8
             More generally, a defendant’s voluntarily ceasing or withdrawing whatever is
   being challenged in a lawsuit while the suit is pending raises questions about the
   permanence of the change. A defendant must be able to show the conduct will not recur.
   Sossamon v. Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 325 (5th Cir. 2009). Yet, when the defendant is a
   governmental actor, there is at least a presumption of good faith that allows us to “assume
   that formally announced changes to official governmental policy are not mere litigation
   posturing.” Id. Without more being shown in this case than we have seen so far, the
   mootness issue here seems to turn on whether the 2019 manual made meaningful changes
   to the Corps’ relevant obligations as set out in the 2012 WCM.

                                               18
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049            Page: 19   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

   is no mootness because the injury remains. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v.
   Becerra, 47 F.4th 368, 374 (5th Cir. 2022). The key is whether the court can
   still order “effectual relief . . . to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Emps.
   Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (quotation marks and
   citations omitted).
          No significant effort has been made in the briefing here to identify
   relevant changes and their possible effect on the core allegations in this case.
   We see that frequent, potentially minor changes were anticipated in the 2012
   version by its “Notice to Users of this Manual.” The Notice stated the
   WCM would be maintained in “loose-leaf form,” with individual pages
   occasionally revised. WATER CONTROL MANUAL at vi. The WCM seems
   the kind of document with occasional, partial revisions that do not affect the
   continuing validity of the remainder. On remand, the district court should
   evaluate the nature of the revisions in the 2019 WCM and, in light of the
   Plaintiffs’ claims, how the mootness doctrine applies to those changes.
          We now examine the Plaintiffs’ claims about the 2012 WCM. We
   repeat that the Corps seemingly accepts there would be a proper Section
   706(2) claim against the WCM (unless mootness applies) if the Tucker Act
   does not send this to the Court of Federal Claims. The Tucker Act does not
   do so, but we still need to analyze whether there is a plausible claim.
          The district court insisted the Plaintiffs shorten their complaint. We
   do not consider the earlier, more robust assertions of claims, though those
   might have included relevant ones. We look at what was retained in the
   operative complaint about the WCM (as well as the failure to revise it):
          [T]he Corps failed to consider its duty to and the rights of
          upstream property owners when making its decision(s) to
          adopt the WCM and implement the “Standing Instructions”
          for operation of the Reservoirs. Additionally, the Corps failed
          to include in the WCM safeguards to prevent the flooding of

                                          19
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049            Page: 20    Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

          property outside the GOL. The Corps continues to use the
          outdated WCM, including its “Standing Instructions,” and
          fails to revise it despite its knowledge of changed requirements
          resulting from developments in the Project area and changed
          environmental conditions within the Reservoirs. Thus, the
          Corps’ WCM continues to subject Plaintiffs to imminent and
          irreparable harm.
          “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
   factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
   its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570).
   Plausibility turns on whether the claim as pled “allows the court to draw the
   reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
   Id.
          The allegation is the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously in
   adopting the WCM. For now, we ignore the failure to revise, i.e., a failure to
   act, in reviewing this claim. The complaint cites the Engineer Regulation
   (“ER”) that creates the duty 9 to prepare such manuals for flood-control
   projects:
          In addition, water control plans for projects owned and
          operated by USACE shall be developed in concert with all
          basin interests which may be impacted by or influence project
          regulation, and public involvement in the development or
          significant revision of water control plans shall be provided for
          as required under this regulation. These considerations should
          be addressed by a water control manual and reflected in an
          approved water control plan.

          9
             The 2012 WCM states its creation was authorized by ER 1110-2-240, dated
   October 8, 1982. WATER CONTROL MANUAL at 1-1. There is a 2016 revised regulation,
   codified at 33 C.F.R. § 222.5.

                                          20
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049            Page: 21   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

   ER 1110-2-240 § 1-5(a) (page 1-2). The complaint identifies 12 different
   provisions of ER 1110-2-240 that allegedly were improperly applied when
   creating the WCM. Included is the claim that the Corps was arbitrary in its
   consideration of the interests of owners of property upstream, including
   allowing impounding of more water than could be contained on government
   land.
           We do not see in this regulation, nor has any party suggested, that
   creation of a WCM is to be conducted through formal notice and comment
   procedures. All we can determine from the regulation about the process for
   creating a WCM is that the Corps delegated authority for final approval to
   the Corps’ Division commander or that person’s designee. ER 1110-2-240 §
   3-1(g) (page 3-2).
           The Plaintiffs are seeking review, under the APA, of the Corps’ final
   agency action in promulgating the WCM. Importantly, review under Section
   706(2)’s arbitrary and capricious standard “is limited to the record before
   the agency at the time of its decision.” Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C. v.
   U.S. E.P.A., 675 F.3d 917, 925 (5th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and citations
   omitted). The Corps has been reluctant to provide such a record. The
   district court allowed the Corps to avoid doing so. It is true that if a case can
   be dismissed on jurisdictional or other preliminary grounds, there is no need
   for the record. We have concluded, though, the Tucker Act is no bar to the
   claim about the WCM. We have left open the issue of mootness, which will
   need to be decided by the district court. Yet, if the case is not moot, then the
   record of how the Corps did or did not evaluate the considerations required
   by ER 1110-2-240 must be provided. It is unclear to us what record would
   exist for preparing the WCM, but that is for the Corps to explain. The
   explanation should be presented in a manner that allows the court to evaluate
   its accuracy, and the record itself needs to be provided.

                                          21
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049         Page: 22   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

          We reverse the district court’s dismissal of this claim and remand. If
   the claim about the WCM is held not to be moot, the district court must
   review the merits of the County Parties’ claims based on the agency record.
                 b.       Section 706(1)
          The complaint also contests, under Section § 706(1), the Corps’
   failure to amend the WCM after the recent flooding events or to acquire
   additional land when the WCM was adopted and after the flooding events.
          When an agency fails to act, federal courts may “compel agency action
   unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” § 706(1). A court’s authority
   to compel agency action is limited to instances where an agency ignored “a
   specific, unequivocal command” in a federal statute or binding regulation.
   See SUWA, 542 U.S. at 63 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The first requirement under Section 706(1) is that a plaintiff must
   challenge discrete agency action. Id. at 64; Mendoza-Tarango, 982 F.3d at 400.
   Here, the County Parties have made a facially plausible showing that the
   Corps failed to take discrete action. We conclude the complaint challenges
   discrete agency action by challenging the Corps’ failure to amend the WCM
   after recent flooding events and to acquire additional land when it adopted
   the WCM. See id.
          The second requirement under Section 706(1) is that the plaintiff
   identify discrete agency action the agency is legally required to take. SUWA,
   542 U.S. at 63. “[T]he APA carried forward the traditional practice prior to
   passage, when judicial review was achieved through . . . writs of mandamus.”
   Id. Writs of mandamus were normally limited to enforcing “a specific,
   unequivocal command” and “the ordering of a precise, definite act . . . about
   which [an official] had no discretion whatever.” Id. (quotation marks and
   citations omitted) (alterations in original). Courts may only “compel an
   agency to perform a ministerial or non-discretionary act, or to take action

                                           22
Case: 21-20174      Document: 00516633049          Page: 23   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

   upon a matter, without directing how it shall act.” Id. at 64 (quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
          We consider whether the complaint adequately pled the Corps was
   required to take action. The alleged compulsion comes from regulations and
   guidance documents promulgated by the Corps itself. The Corps concedes
   a regulation can mandate duties. The Supreme Court indicated as much
   when it stated that limiting challenges to agency actions that are mandatory
   “rules out judicial direction of even discrete agency action that is not
   demanded by law (which includes, of course, agency regulations that have
   the force of law).” Id. at 65. The Corps’ brief argues, though, that certain
   documents relied on in the complaint cannot create a mandatory duty:
   “unlike regulations, statutes, or even internally binding rules in a water
   control manual, the cited ‘guidance’ in the technical letter cannot form the
   basis for a ‘mandatory’ duty claim under the APA.”
          We will examine the text of the cited Corps regulations for mandatory
   language.     Any regulations that contain such language will be deemed
   sufficient at the pleading stage. We leave open at this point whether any
   authority cited by the Plaintiffs that is not a regulation can create a duty to
   act.
          “We interpret regulations in the same manner as statutes, looking first
   to the regulation’s plain language.” ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of
   Transp., 867 F.3d 564, 573 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation
   omitted). When regulatory language is unambiguous, we apply the plain
   meaning of the language. Id. Though the plain meaning of regulatory
   language is generally controlling, we must read a regulation’s language in the
   “‘specific context in which that language is used.’” Mayorkas, 24 F.4th at
   390 (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)).

                                         23
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049              Page: 24       Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                          No. 21-20174

                            i.      Failure to revise the WCM
           The County Parties contend the Corps was legally required to update
   the WCM after the recent flooding events, citing ER 1110-2-240 §§ 3-2(j)(1),
   3-1(e). 10 Of course, the Corps now informs us it has revised the WCM. The
   County Parties, though, have not alleged it was time for a revision just in the
   abstract; they have asserted the WCM needed to be revised to respond to the
   flooding. The Corps does not claim it adjusted the WCM in a manner that
   responds to the flooding events. Thus, the issue of the need for specific
   revisions is not automatically mooted by the fact there has been some
   revision.
           We examine what is in the WCM about required revisions. Section 3-
   2(j)(1) applies to revising water control plans, and Section 3-1(e) to WCMs.
   The County Parties have not alleged the Corps failed to update any water
   control plan, so Section 3-2(j)(1) is inapplicable. See § 3-2(j)(1). That leaves
   Section 3-1(e), which describes when WCMs should be revised:
           Water control manuals . . . shall be revised as necessary to
           conform to changing requirements resulting from
           developments in the project area and downstream,
           improvements in technology, improved understanding of
           ecological response and sustainability, new legislation, and
           other relevant factors, provided such revisions comply with
           existing federal regulations and established Corps policy.
   Id. § 3-1(e).

           10
              The parties have used the citations we are using to the regulations. We noted
   earlier that the key regulation, ER 1110-240, appears to be found at 33 C.F.R. § 222.5. The
   C.F.R. has codified the 2016 version of the ER. We will use the parties’ lengthier citations
   and not try to figure out the why of their use.

                                               24
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049            Page: 25   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

          This language does not impose a mandatory duty on the Corps.
   Certainly, the term “shall” is suggestive of an obligation. Even so, the word
   “shall” here is modified by the phrase “as necessary,” which is then
   followed by several circumstances that may prompt revising a WCM. Since
   the regulation does not specify when such conditions require the Corps to
   update a WCM, the Corps must exercise discretion in deciding when
   updating a WCM is necessary. Such discretion is antithetical to a mandatory
   duty. We conclude there is no discrete, mandatory duty to revise.
                         ii.    Failure to acquire additional land
          The County Parties also argue the Corps was legally required to
   acquire additional lands at the time the Corps adopted the WCM. The duty
   is said to arise under the following Engineer Regulations, namely,
   ER 1110-2-240 § 3-2(c), ER 405-1-12 § 2-12, ER 405-2-150, and guidance
   documents such as Engineer Technical Letter (“ETL”) 110-2-22. To the
   extent possible, we analyze each.
          First, the County Parties rely upon ER 1110-2-240, § 3-2(c). That
   section provides that “water control plan[s], including any allocation of
   storage it describes, shall be designed to achieve all authorized purposes of
   the particular project . . . in light of applicable law and existing conditions.”
   Id. § 3-2(c). That language is aspirational, not mandatory.
          Second, the County Parties rely upon ER 405-1-12 § 2-12. That
   regulation is neither available to the public nor in this record. It is entitled
   “Real Estate Handbook” and was apparently issued by the Corps. It
   allegedly states that “the Corps will take an adequate interest in lands . . . to
   accomplish all the authorized purposes of the project.” § 2-12. The County
   Parties argue the term “will” mandates the Corps to acquire land for the
   authorized purpose of the project. The County Parties also quote language
   from Section 2-12(a)(2) of that ER which requires the Corps to purchase in

                                          25
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049        Page: 26   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

   fee “lands below a guide contour line . . . established with a reasonable
   freeboard allowance above the top pool elevation for storing water for flood
   control.” The Corps responds that the language does not specify how the
   Corps determines what is “adequate” or provide a deadline for when action
   should be taken, and that the Corps must exercise its discretion to decide
   what is “reasonable.” The County Parties reply that the plain meaning of
   “adequate” is “legally sufficient” and that we should apply the plain
   meaning to this regulation. See Adequate, Black’s Law Dictionary
   (11th ed. 2019).
          We conclude the County Parties have created a sufficient issue, based
   on what we have available now, to make a plausible argument that the Corps
   had a mandatory duty to acquire additional lands under ER 405-1-12.
   Because the regulation is not a public document and is not part of the record,
   we are unable to review the language of the regulation. See Department of
   Defense Department of the Army Real Estate Handbook, 84 Fed. Reg.
   35,034 (July 22, 2019) (to be codified at 32 C.F.R. pt. 644) (“current internal
   policy and procedures are maintained in Army Corps of Engineers
   Regulation ER 405-1-12, which is not available to the public”). We remand
   so the Corps can produce the ER under whatever protections are justified by
   the reasons for its non-public status, and the district court can determine
   whether the actual language creates a duty.
          Third, the County Parties rely on a combination of Corps guidance
   documents. The complaint alleges, “Corps regulations and hydrologic
   criteria for acquisition of reservoir lands, including for example ETL 110-2-
   22 and the guidance set forth in ER 405-2-150[,] required the Corps to
   acquire upstream real estate up to the limits of the MDP.” The complaint
   also contends, “[i]nternal Corps documents dating back to 1980
   acknowledge ‘[i]n order for Addicks and Barker to be in strict compliance
   with ETL-110-2-22’ . . . it would be necessary to acquire real estate interests

                                         26
Case: 21-20174      Document: 00516633049          Page: 27   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

   in the area.’”    The referenced document is described in a motion as
   containing “the hydrologic criteria for acquisition of reservoir lands.” Yet
   again, the County Parties are relying on a non-public document not in the
   record.
          Another missing document is ER 405-2-150, which was superseded in
   1979. The County Parties assert ER 405-2-150’s relevance is “to confirm the
   Corps’ longstanding regulatory obligation to take adequate property interest
   in lands to accomplish the authorized purposes of the project. The Corps’
   past interpretation and application of ER 405-2-150 is relevant to the binding
   effect of current regulations updating but not materially altering the former
   regulation.” In light of the fact this Engineer Regulation was “superseded”
   in 1979, and the litigation here concerns failures to respond to events in 2016
   and 2017, we do not consider any effect it might once have had.
          As to ETL 110-2-22, an initial question is whether Corps guidance
   documents can create binding duties on the Corps. In SUWA, the Court
   considered whether the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) could be
   compelled to comply with certain provisions of its land-use plans. SUWA,
   542 U.S. at 67. The plaintiffs there argued one land-use plan “obligated BLM
   to conduct an intensive [off-road vehicle] monitoring program” due to
   damage to the “Factory Butte area” caused by such vehicles. Id. at 68. The
   plaintiffs argued such a monitoring program was required because the plan
   stated the area “will be monitored and closed if warranted.” Id. The Court
   rejected this claim because the plan did not provide a “clear indication of
   binding commitment” on the BLM. Id. at 69. The Court held that, absent
   “language in the plan itself creat[ing] a commitment binding on the agency,”
   the plan was not enforceable under Section 706(1). See id. at 71.

          Under SUWA, then, we need to know whether ETL 110-2-22, by its
   own terms, binds the agency to a legal position or “produce[s] legal

                                         27
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049           Page: 28   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

   consequences or determine[s] rights and obligations.” See Texas v. EEOC,
   933 F.3d 433, 441 (5th Cir. 2019). We applied that standard when deciding
   whether the EEOC was bound by a guidance document it prepared on how
   Title VII affected employers’ refusals to hire due to applicants’ criminal
   records. Id. at 437. We considered whether the document “appears on its
   face to be binding[ ] or is applied by the agency in a way that indicates it is
   binding.” Id. at 441 (quoting Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 171 (5th
   Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 579 U.S. 547, 548 (2016))
   (alterations in original). “In some cases, the mandatory language of a
   document alone can be sufficient to render it binding.” Id. at 441–42
   (quotation marks and citations omitted). We concluded the guidance did
   bind the agency. Id. at 442. Indeed, the EEOC conceded it was bound to
   apply its own guidance. Id. at 444.
          The County Parties argue ETL 110-2-22 similarly provides a legally
   binding commitment on the Corps. The County Parties rely on an opinion
   from another circuit holding that the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir
   System Reservoir Regulation Manual (“Master Manual”), produced by the
   Corps under the Flood Control Act, was legally binding. See South Dakota v.
   Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d 1014, 1029 (8th Cir. 2003). There, the Eighth Circuit
   reviewed whether three district courts erred by issuing a preliminary
   injunction barring the Corps from releasing reservoir water during a severe
   and lengthy drought. Id. at 1019. The case arose out of a disagreement among
   states with the Corps’ management of reservoir water during prolonged
   drought conditions on the Missouri River. Id. at 1019–20. Due to the water
   shortage, “the Corps decided to release water from Lake Oahe in South
   Dakota to maintain downstream navigation on the Missouri River,” while
   holding water constant at other reservoirs. Id. at 1021. South Dakota filed
   suit under the APA, arguing the Corps had acted arbitrarily and capriciously

                                         28
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049            Page: 29   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                     No. 21-20174

   by releasing water from a reservoir and sought to enjoin the Corps from
   releasing reservoir water for a limited time. Id.
           The court considered whether there was “‘law to apply.’” Id. at 1027
   (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410
   (1971)). The court held there was law to apply because the Corps’ actions
   were “constrained both by the Flood Control Act and by the Master
   Manual.” Id. The court stated, “[w]here a policy statement purports to
   create substantive requirements, it can be a legislative rule regardless of the
   agency’s characterization.” Id. The court held the Master Manual was
   binding “because it set[ ] out substantive requirements, and its language and
   context indicate that it was intended to bind the Corps’[ ] discretion.” Id. at
   1028.
           ETL 110-2-22 is neither public nor in the record, so we cannot
   examine its language. Thus, we look at whether the complaint plausibly
   pleads that it binds. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint alleges each
   reservoir was designed to have an MDP for detaining floodwater that exceeds
   the boundaries of GOL. The complaint alleges internal Corps documents
   dating back to 1980 stated it was “necessary to acquire real estate interests in
   the area” up to the maximum storage capacity to be in “strict compliance
   with ETL-110-2-22.” The Corps obtained an estimate for the acquisition of
   an additional 4,840 acres behind the Addicks Dam and 3,860 behind the
   Barker Dam, which would ostensibly have been all the land up to the MDP.
   The Corps failed, though, to request authorization from Congress to acquire
   the additional land.
           Further, the Corps’ Chief Engineering and Construction Division and
   Dam Safety Officer, Rob Thomas, testified concerning the mandatory
   requirements set out in ETL 110-2-22 and other Corps documents during the
   Upstream Takings Litigation, a case brought in the Court of Federal Claims.

                                         29
Case: 21-20174    Document: 00516633049           Page: 30   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                   No. 21-20174

   In re Upstream, 146 Fed. Cl. 219 (2019). These “internal Corps documents
   dating back to 1980” are not in the record nor are they named; rather, the
   transcript of Thomas’s trial testimony indicates he quoted and interpreted
   the documents introduced during that proceeding. Thomas testified about
   ETL 110-2-22, stating it is a 1970 document entitled “Hydaulic Criteria For
   Acquisition of Reservoir Lands.”       He confirmed the purpose of the
   document is to “provide[] guidance to district engineers who are applying
   hydraulic engineering principles to establish guidelines on which to base the
   upper limits of land acquisitions in reservoir areas of dam and reservoir
   service projects,” such as the Addicks and Barker dams and reservoirs.
          Additionally, Thomas testified that a 1979-1980 document with the
   subject “Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Spillways for Addicks and Barker
   Dams,” directed to the Corps Southwestern Division Engineer and sent from
   a Corps District Engineer, states, “[a]cquisition of upstream real estate to
   the standard project flood pool elevation plus freeboard is necessary to
   comply with ETL-110-2-22.” Thomas testified that another 1980 document
   with the subject “Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Spillways for Addicks and
   Barker Dams,” from the Corps Chief Real Estate Division, states: “In order
   for Addicks and Barker Reservoirs to be in strict compliance with ETL-110-
   2-22, we determined that it would be necessary to acquire real estate
   interests” up to the MDP.
          Taking these allegations as true, and construing them in favor of the
   County Parties, we conclude they have adequately pled ETL 110-2-22 was
   binding and imposed a mandatory duty on the Corps. The language from the
   internal Corps documents quoted in the complaint and the testimony from a
   Corps representative support the inference that ETL 110-2-22 was binding;
   they demonstrate ETL 110-2-22 set out substantive requirements to acquire
   additional land and that its language, context, and treatment indicate it was
   intended to bind the Corps’ discretion. See Ubbelohde, 330 F.3d at 1028.

                                        30
Case: 21-20174      Document: 00516633049           Page: 31   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

          We remand so ETL 110-2-22 may be produced and for further factual
   development on whether it is binding. Then, the district court may be
   consider whether ETL 110-2-22 imposed a mandatory duty on the Corps to
   acquire additional lands. Cf. SUWA, 542 U.S. at 72.
                        iii.   Other authorities
          The County Parties argue various other regulations and guidance
   documents impose discrete, mandatory duties on the Corps. The County
   Parties have not, however, attempted to explain how the Corps failed to
   follow these regulations and guidance documents, nor have they related them
   to any of the agency actions challenged in their complaint. We conclude the
   County Parties have forfeited any claims arising under those regulations and
   guidance documents by failing to brief them adequately on appeal. See Roy v.
   City of Monroe, 950 F.3d 245, 251 (5th Cir. 2020).
          III.    Reassignment on remand
          An appellate court may order the reassignment of a case to another
   judge on remand. Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1333 (5th Cir. 1997).
   This power, however, is “extraordinary” and “rarely invoked.” Miller v.
   Sam Houston State Univ., 986 F.3d 880, 892 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks
   and citation omitted). In considering whether to reassign a case, we apply a
   “lenient” and a “stringent” test.          Id.    The County Parties assert
   reassignment is necessary under both tests.
          The stringent test considers three factors: (1) whether the original
   judge would reasonably be expected to have difficulty putting aside previous
   views determined on appeal to be erroneous, “(2) whether reassignment is
   advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment
   would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving
   the appearance of fairness.” Id. at 892–93 (quotation marks and citation
   omitted).     The lenient test asks whether an objective observer would

                                         31
Case: 21-20174        Document: 00516633049               Page: 32        Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                           No. 21-20174

   reasonably question the judge’s partiality. Id. at 893. The stringent test’s
   second “factor aligns with the question posed by the [lenient] test.” United
   States v. Khan, 997 F.3d 242, 249 (5th Cir. 2021).
           We identify the actions the County Parties insist support reassigning
   the case. First, they argue the district judge denied the County Parties’
   request for limited discovery to obtain the administrative record and lacked
   any competent basis for facts he included in the dismissal order. Second, the
   district judge ordered the Corps to “furnish a one-page statement that
   describes — in clear, practical terms — what it did, why it did it, and the
   consequences of alternative responses” without requesting a response from
   the plaintiffs. Third, they contend he adopted the Corps’ “self-serving”
   narrative of the facts and “embellished” the narrative with facts not provided
   by either party. 11
           We do not find the district judge’s conduct or views expressed in the
   order to reveal an inability to be impartial. Just taking the demand for a one-
   page summary, we remark it is not clear to us whether the actions that led to
   the WCM were designed to produce a record and, if so, what the record
   would contain. The Supreme Court once authorized ordering an agency to
   supplement the record of informal rulemaking by providing a summary of its
   decision-making. Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 420. The district court’s actions
   here were not that different. Yet, here, the predicate for such a summary,
   namely, the absence of an actual record, has not (yet) been shown. We
   explain.

           11
              The district court wrote that, had the Corps not detained the floodwater, the
   reservoirs would have failed, thereby releasing “three trillion gallons of water . . . down the
   bayou” and “causing catastrophic damage and loss of life all the way to Galveston Bay.”
   The County Parties seem to be correct that there is at least no direct support for this
   statement in the record.

                                                 32
Case: 21-20174     Document: 00516633049           Page: 33   Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                    No. 21-20174

          In its motion for limited discovery at the district court, the County
   Parties alleged a record would contain “internal Corps documents
   interpreting (1) Corps regulations setting requirements for acquisition of land
   in the Reservoirs, (2) requirements for the [WCM], and (3) regulations
   concerning amendments to the WCM.” The County Parties allege they
   know those documents exist and are readily available to the Corps because
   they were previously produced by the Corps and introduced in evidence in
   open court during the Upstream Takings Litigation. The Corps can respond
   on remand as to what record exists.
          Though some of the district judge’s rulings were unconventional, we
   do not believe his actions would “reasonably cause an objective observer to
   question [the judge’s] impartiality.” Miller, 986 F.3d at 893 (quotation marks
   and citation omitted) (alterations in original). Conversely, reassigning the
   case to another judge would likely entail waste and duplication out of
   proportion to any gain in the appearance of fairness. Although the original
   complaint was filed in March of 2018, the record is short and there has yet to
   be any discovery. The County Parties have not shown reassignment is
   merited.
          We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent
   with this opinion.

                                         33