News Release

December 1, 2025

ALF Urges Supreme Court To Reaffirm That Governmental Appropriations of Water Rights Are Per Se, Physical Takings of Compensable Property


Question Presented:


Whether the government’s appropriation of water that a person had a property right to use is analyzed as a physical taking, rather than a regulatory taking, under the Fifth Amendment.

"The Federal Circuit's holding conflicts with more than a century of Supreme Court Fifth Amendment precedent holding that a governmental appropriation of water rights is a compensable, per se, physical taking, not a regulatory taking."

— Atlantic Legal Foudation

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requires the government to pay “just compensation” when it takes private property for public use. Supreme Court cases consistently have treated govermental takings of water rights as per se, physical takings of property. But in United Water Conservation District v. United States, 133 F.4th 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2025), a court of appeals panel misread those, and its own, water rights takings precedents. It held that the appropriation of a California water-conservation district’s state-law water rights for purposes of complying with the Endangered Species Act by facilitating steelhead trout migration is a “regulatory taking” subject to a balancing test rather than to the categorical, per se takings rule.


United Conservation Water District is seeking Supreme Court review of this unprecedented Federal Circuit treatment of the taking of water property rights. Nationally renowned takings-law expert Nancie Marzulla of Marzulla Law, LLC has authored an amicus brief on behalf of the Atlantic Legal Foundation urging the Court to grant review.


ALF's Amicus Brief


ALF’s amicus brief supports the pending certiorari petition in United Water Conservation District v. United States (25-523). The brief discuses why the Federal Circuit’s opinion conflicts with leading Supreme Court water rights takings precedents such as International Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 399 (1931), United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950), and Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963), and also the circuit court’s own ruling in Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States, 543 Fed. Cir. 1276 (2008).


Equally important, the amicus brief explains why the “regulatory taking” guidepoints identified by the Supreme Court in a non-water rights case, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), do not apply. Emphasizing the importance of the question presented, the amicus brief also illuminates the unique character of water property rights, which are state-law rights to the use of water, not necessarily to ownership of water.

Share This News Release With Your Social Media Networks:

X Share This Email
LinkedIn Share This Email
Media Contact: Larry Ebner
lawrence.ebner@atlanticlegal.org | Tel: 202-872-0011

About the Atlantic Legal Foundation


For almost half a century, the Atlantic Legal Foundation, a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest law firm, has advocated in the Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals, and state appellate courts for individual liberty, free enterprise, property rights, limited & responsible government, sound science in judicial & regulatory proceedings, and effective education, including parental rights and school choice.

Donor-Advised Fund Contributions are Welcome


We ask you to join others in making a tax-deductible donation to ALF by clicking the DONATE button below. Donations via our secure payment system can be made with credit card, debit card, or PayPal and are truly critical to enable ALF to continue its good work serving the broad public interest.

New York Office
2005 Palmer Ave., No. 194
Larchmont, New York 10538

Washington, D.C. Office
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006

California Office
1527 Stone Canyon Rd.
Los Angeles, CA 90077

Main Number: (914) 834-3322
Linkedin