Oceanview Farms v. United States, 4th Cir. (2000)
Oceanview Farms v. United States, 4th Cir. (2000)
Oceanview Farms v. United States, 4th Cir. (2000)
cretion was akin to that used by a private engineer in making technical judgments, not the kind of discretion that would implicate
government policy and that would insulate the United States from liability under the discretionary function exception.
The district court correctly held that although the NRCS design
decisions involved technical engineering judgments, the design considerations -- including functional effectiveness, safe performance,
cost effectiveness, and adaptation to surrounding water and landscape
resources -- were also "susceptible of policy analysis." United States
v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 325 (1991) (holding that the agency's
advice to a private bank on whom to hire, which litigation positions
to take, and how to structure the bank fell within the discretionary
function exception despite the fact that the advice involved technical
business judgment). That is, the court correctly held that such considerations were reflective of the policies that underlay the statutes and
regulations pursuant to which the NRCS engineers were acting, and
therefore that the design considerations fell within the discretionary
function exception.
Having heard argument in the case and considered the submissions
of the parties, we agree with the conclusion reached by the district
court and affirm on its substantive reasoning.
AFFIRMED
4