case is not a takings case. It is a tort case. The tort committed by the Government caused “[d]amages to the permitted project [Contango’s pipeline] ... as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.’’ The exculpatory clause applies. For the foregoing reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part. % }fc if: ^ i|t 1 . 33 C.F.R. § 209.130(c)(2)(vii) (1974). 2 . Ante at 286. 3 . Id. 4 . See id. at 286-87 n.13. 5 . 69 Fed.Cl. 206, 207-08, 214 (2006). 6 . Id. at 210 (alteration in original). 7 . Id. at 208. 8 . Id. 9 . Id. at 214. 10 . Id. at 212-14. 11 . Id. at 214. 12 . Id. 13 . Id. at 217 (second alteration in original). 14 . Id. (citing United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745, 750, 67 S.Ct. 1382, 91 L.Ed. 1789 (1947)
holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property holding that when the government takes property by flooding it the government is also liable for the cost of protective measures by landowners in preventing erosion caused by raised water levels holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract holding that exhaustion of issues is waived if not raised by the government