![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2015\/05\/mrgo.jpg\")
<\/a>Flooding from Hurricane Katrina constitutes a taking of property without just compensation by the United States government, according to a recent decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims in Saint Bernard Parish Government, et al., v. The United States<\/a>. Judge Susan Braden found that the Army Corps of Engineers\u2019 (the Corps) negligent design and failure to maintain the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MR-GO), a canal constructed by the Corps in the 1950s, exacerbated flood damage in parts of New Orleans. The increased flooding, although temporary, wrongfully deprived land owners of the use of their property. Judge Braden\u2019s decision relied heavily on a 2012 Supreme Court case, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States<\/a>, which held that temporary flooding caused by government action is not categorically exempt from Takings Clause liability.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Prior efforts to hold the government liable for flood damage from Hurricane Katrina were unsuccessful. An earlier case brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), rather than the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. In that case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals at first affirmed the trial court\u2019s finding of liability, but then issued a subsequent ruling finding that the government was immune from the plaintiffs\u2019 claims, because its actions in connection with the design and maintenance of MR-GO were largely discretionary. In contrast, the United States has waived sovereign immunity for claims brought under the Takings Claims through the Tucker Act<\/a>, which grants jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims for claims for \u201cdamages in cases not sounding in tort.\u201d<\/p>\n