More than 60 landowners from Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa are seeking compensation from the federal government for its taking of their property “without compensation,” even as federal action resulted in flooding along the Missouri River.
A class action lawsuit on behalf of the landowners was filed on Dec. 30 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the United States, a press release said.
“The filing seeks just compensation from the federal government for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment that bars the government from taking private property without compensation,” the press release said.
The class action lawsuit follows a U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision on Dec. 14 in favor of more than 400 farmers, landowners and business owners from six states that filed suit over changes the United States Army Corps of Engineers made to its operations on the Missouri River after 2004, the press release said.
That mass action lawsuit, Ideker Farms, Inc., et al, v. The United States, contended that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ actions “under the Missouri River Recovery Program, in order to comply with the Endangered Species Act, have resulted in the taking of flowage easements across their properties without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the trial opinion said.
Lead Counsel R. Dan Boulware from the Polsinelli Law Firm said in a statement to the St. Louis Record, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “'took’ private land pursuant to a government action to benefit endangered species.”
“When they did so, they reduced the priority of flood control from the top priority in river management to the same level as protection of the species after flood control had been the top priority since the middle of the last century,” Boulware said.
While many landowners along the Missouri River should be compensated for their losses, Congress has a role to play, too, Boulware said.
“Congress needs to direct the Corps to restore flood control to its previous priority and put back the river control structures that were removed along the lower river,” Boulware said. “Those two things would be a good start but other measures would also need to be taken.”