Mildenberger v. United States

Florida and the Army Corps of Engineers constructed a system of canals and levees to control Lake Okeechobee levels. A canal connected the St. Lucie River to the Atlantic, making the water brackish and suitable for estuarine life, and the St. Lucie Canal connected the river to Lake Okeechobee. Before heavy rainfall, the Corps releases additional water from the lake into the canal, which flowed into the river. In the 1950s, sediment and agricultural nutrients from the lake damaged the St. Lucie ecosystem. By the 1970s the river was black and most fish and wildlife had disappeared. During the 1990s locals formed an initiative to restore the river and published a 1996 newsletter that described “massive algal bloom,” blamed the worst pollution since the 1950s on the canals, and noted “obvious” adverse effects on plants, fish, and wildlife. Meanwhile, increased lake-water releases decreased the canal’s salinity, killing oysters and other estuarine species. In 2006, John Mildenberger and other landowners along the river or canal (plaintiffs), including initiative members, sued the government (defendant) claiming that repeatedly discharging polluted freshwater from the lake constituted taking riparian rights without just compensation. The court dismissed, reasoning that limitations barred the claims under the stabilization doctrine, but also found the claimants’ riparian rights were not vested, compensable property rights not shared with the public. The claimants appealed, arguing they had compensable property interests and that government promises to mitigate the damage prevented the takings claims from accruing. Meanwhile, the Corps never committed to a plan to mitigate the effects of the discharges into the river.