A flood is usually considered an act of nature, but one induced by the government might just rise to the level of a taking. In a unanimous USSC opinion, the Court found in favor of Arkansas against the federal government because the feds had allowed temporary flooding to occur off schedule, resulting in Arkansas' land being flooded an extra 26 days per year. The lower courts treated it like any other dam case. The Court ruled that the feds argument did not hold water, and that temporary flooding might rise to the level of a compensable taking in consideration of the following factors: (i) the degree to which the invasion is intended or is a foreseeable result of authorized government action, (ii) the character of the land at issue and the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations regarding the land's use, and (iii) the severity of the interference. What do these factors tell us that the court is focused on in lieu of the per se takings rule of physical occupation of property?