Premium
Federal Court of Claims Takes Different Approach Than Tulare
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal ‐ american water works association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.466
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1551-8833
pISSN - 0003-150X
DOI - 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2008.tb09792.x
Subject(s) - law , constitution , endangered species , government (linguistics) , property rights , business , political science , sociology , linguistics , philosophy , population , demography
A case subsequent to Tulare from the Federal Court of Claims ‐ Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504, 538 (2005) ‐ took a different approach than Tulare. In Klamath, the court determined that the question of whether the government had infringed on the rights holders’ property rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution was not relevant, because the water deliveries were dependent on contractual rights, not property rights. The court found that it was a contract case and that no takings claim could be based on the fact. Because the contracts incorporated the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Klamath court concluded that no breach of contract had occurred.