U.S. v. 255.25 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Monroe County, State of Mo., s. 76-1645

• Citation: 553 F.2d 571
• Decision Date: 20 April 1977
• Docket Number: Nos. 76-1645,s. 76-1645
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 255.25 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, situate IN MONROE COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants (two cases). UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 468.93 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, situate IN MONROE COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 371.93 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, situate IN MONROE COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants. to 76-1648.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 571

553 F.2d 571

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 255.25 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, situate IN MONROE

COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants (two cases).

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 468.93 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, situate IN MONROE

COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. 371.93 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, situate IN MONROE

COUNTY, STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Appellants.

Nos. 76-1645 to 76-1648.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 17, 1977.

Decided April 20, 1977.

Samuel C. Ebling, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants; Gregory F. Hoffmann, St. Louis, Mo., on brief.

Edward J. Shawaker, Land & Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Peter R. Taft and Raymond N. Zagone, Washington, D. C., on brief.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, CLARK, Associate Justice, ^* and HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals arose out of condemnation proceedings instituted by the Secretary of the Army for acquisition of lands in connection with the Clarence Cannon Dam Reservoir Project, which was authorized by Congress on October 23, 1962, Pub.L. No. 87-874, 76 Stat. 1173 (1962), in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in H.R.Doc.No. 507, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962).

The landowners raised certain defenses to the taking of their property, including the fact that those portions of their property that were located above the 621-foot meander level were being taken without statutory authority; and that the Government had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4630, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1153, and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857. ¹

On the merits, the Government admits that the authorizing Act of the Congress on the Cannon Project adopted elevation 621 as the upper limit for acquisition in fee for reservoir operational purposes, but also provided for flowage easements over the remaining lands within the reservoir area between the fee-taking line of elevation 621, and elevation 641.0, three feet above the top of the flood control pool. The Government also points to the fact that the Act authorizes the Cannon Project to be built "substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief Engineers in House Document 507." This language was obviously taken from the written recommendation that the Board of Engineers made to the Congress requesting authorization of the Cannon project which provided that it be built "generally in accordance with the plans of the District Engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable." H.R.Doc.No. 507, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1962). Finally, the District Engineer recommended the project "generally in accordance with plans outlined herein." Id. at 63. Some of the circuits have construed this language as being quite sufficient to allow "such modifications as later studies indicate are necessary. Allison v. Froehlke, 470 F.2d 1123, 1126 (5th Cir. 1972). Indeed, this circuit itself has recognized that the building of dams involves a revision of the original plans as the building process develops. United States v. Crance, 341 F.2d 161 (...