In May 2011, approximately 130,000 acres of Missouri farmland were flooded when the United States Army Corps of Engineers crevassed the levee protecting that land from the waters of the Mississippi River. The owners of these lands, however, were unable to obtain compensation from the federal government pursuant to the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution because the flooding was not permanent or certain to recur. This treatment of temporary floodwaters is in stark contrast to the takings analysis conducted when other temporary government actions are examined.

This Comment argues that temporary flooding should be treated exactly as other temporary government actions when courts determine whether government action constitutes a taking of private property. This conclusion is based on an examination of the standard under which floodwater takings claims are currently analyzed and the unpersuasive rationales for disallowing compensation for temporary flooding. However, this Comment, after examining the original intent and original meaning of the Takings Clause and the judicial creation of regulatory takings, also argues that this needed change in takings jurisprudence should not be extended to compensate property owners whose land might flood in the future due to government action. Finally, this Comment provides an example to demonstrate how a court should conduct the analysis of a takings claim based on temporary flooding.