## Facts

- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operated components of the Central and South Florida Project, including the Okeechobee Waterway, which uses the St. Lucie Canal and St. Lucie River as part of a flood-control and water-management system.
- To manage Lake Okeechobee water levels, the Corps periodically released large volumes of freshwater into the St. Lucie Canal and River.
- Riparian and nearby landowners alleged the discharges carried sediment and agricultural nutrients, altered salinity, increased pollution, and damaged the estuarine ecosystem and wildlife.
- The landowners claimed that degraded ecological conditions impaired their uses of the adjacent waters (including boating, swimming, fishing, and wildlife observation), constituting a Fifth Amendment taking of riparian and related property rights.
- The landowners filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act seeking just compensation; the government moved to dismiss.

## Issues

1. When did the alleged takings claims accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501, including application of the stabilization doctrine to gradual or recurring physical effects?
2. Under Florida law, did the asserted interests (boating, fishing, swimming, and observing wildlife in adjacent waters) constitute vested, compensable private property rights capable of being taken?

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The claims were time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 because the alleged injury had stabilized, and the landowners knew or should have known of the permanent or inevitably recurring nature of the harm more than six years before suit.
- Independent of timeliness, the landowners failed to establish a compensable property interest under Florida law in the particular riparian uses asserted.

## Legal Principles

- Tucker Act takings claims in the Court of Federal Claims must be filed within six years of accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
- For gradual or continuous physical processes, accrual may be delayed by the stabilization doctrine until the injury’s permanence and extent are reasonably knowable; once stabilized, later mitigation planning or assurances do not reset accrual.
- A Fifth Amendment takings claim requires a cognizable property interest defined by state law.
- Under Florida law, recreational and public uses of navigable waters—such as boating, fishing, swimming, and wildlife observation—are not exclusive, vested private property rights of riparian owners and are not compensable “property” for takings purposes.

## Conclusion

The court held that the landowners’ takings claims based on recurring freshwater discharges were untimely under the six-year limitations period because the alleged harm had stabilized years earlier, and that the asserted riparian recreational uses were not compensable private property interests under Florida law.


Mildenberger v. United States, 643 F.3d 938 (Fed. Cir. 2011)