United States v. Chicago St Co
| Decision Date | 31 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 535,535 |
| Citation | 312 U.S. 592,61 S.Ct. 772,85 L.Ed. 1064,313 U.S. 543 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Mr. A. C. Erdall, of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent.
The question for decision is whether the United States must compensate a riparian owner for injury to structures located between high and low water marks, where the damage is caused by the raising of the water level in a navigable stream for the improvement of navigation. The importance of the question, and a conflict in the decisions of this court, led to the grant of certiorari. 311 U.S. 642, 61 S.Ct. 318, 85 L.Ed. —-.
The tracks of the respondent railroad and the pole lines of the respondent telegraph company in Wabasha and Winona counties, Minnesota, as relocated in 1910, are, in part, on an embankment on the westerly side of the Mississippi River. The embankment was adequately riprapped, where necessary, to protect it in times of high water.
In the prosecution of a project for the improvement of navigation the United States has been, and is, engaged in constructing a series of locks and dams in the upper reaches of the Mississippi. One of the dams authorized by Act of Congress1 raises the level of the river and creates a pool which inundates bottom lands along the west bank.
In 1933 the Government instituted condemnation proceedings to acquire the right to back water across the respondents' right of way and against their embankment. Since the dam raises the water level from 5.6 to 7.5 feet above ordinary high water mark, the respondents were compelled at certain points to add additional riprap to prevent damage to their embankment.
At the trial in the condemnation proceeding the Government offered to prove that four segments of the embankment lie between the ordinary high and ordinary low water marks of the river; are, therefore, subject to the federal power to improve navigation; and that any injury to them by additional flooding is an incident of the exercise of the power and not the subject of compensation. The respondents objected to the offer as immaterial for the reason that neither before nor after the improvement did the embankment constitute an obstruction or menace to navigation and its maintenance was and is, therefore, a right of private property, the injury to which, in the prosecution of the federal project, entitled the owner to compensation.
The District Court rejected the offer of proof. Thereupon the Government moved to dismiss from the proceedings all question of compensation for the four encroachment areas where the embankment was claimed to be located between high and low water marks. The motion was denied. A verdict and judgment ensued for damages to the entire length of the embankment both where it was admitted to be located on fast land and where it was claimed to lie between high and low water marks. Each party appealed. Thereafter, by stipulation, all questions, except that touching the four segments of the embankment which the Government claimed were located between high and low water marks, were eliminated from the cause. It was stipulated by the respondents that one of the four segments in question was so located, but as to the other three the parties are in disagreement. The Court of Appeals, for the purpose of decision, assumed that all four were so located but held, nevertheless, that the Government was bound to compensate the respondents for damage to all of them, and affirmed the judgment of the District Court.2
Certain matters are not in dispute. The Mississippi River at the points in question is navigable. The respondent railroad is the riparian owner and, as such, its title extends to ordinary low water mark. The natural channel and the course of navigation through the pool formed by the dam lie at a considerable distance from the embankment which does not, and will not, obstruct or interfere with actual navigation. The lands lying between the embankment and the natural channel were low lands which, prior to the improvement, were to a great extent covered with trees and scrub.
The respondents assert that the power of the Government to take private lands for the improvement of navigation is confined to the natural widths, levels, and flows of the river and that if more is taken compensation must be made. Their position is that the embankment can be injured without compensation only if it constitutes an encroachment and thus a hindrance or obstruction to actual navigation. The Government, on the other hand, insists that its power is not confined to the mere making or clearing of channels and removing hindrances and obstructions to their navigation, but embraces the exercise of every appropriate means for the improvement of navigable capacity and that, in the provision of any such means, it is entitled to deal with and alter the level of the stream to any extent up to ordinary high water mark without being answerable to riparian owners for injury to structures lying below that line.
Commerce, the regulation of which between the states is committed by the Constitution to Congress, article 1, § 8, cl. 3, includes navigation. 3 And the determination of the necessity for a given improvement of navigable capacity, and the character and extent of it, is for Congress alone.4 Whether, under local law, the title to the bed of the stream is retained by the State or the title of the riparian owner extends to the thread of the stream, or, as in this case, to low water mark,5 the rights of the title holder are subordinate to the dominant power of the federal Government in respect of navigation.6
The power of Congress extends not only to keeping clear the channels of interstate navigation by the prohibition or removal of actual obstructions located by the riparian owner, or others, but comprehends as well the power to improve and enlarge their navigability.7
The bed of a river is 'that portion of its soil which is alternately covered and left bare, as there may be an increase or diminution in the supply of water, and which is adequate to contain it at its average and mean stage during the entire year, without reference to the extraordinary freshets of the winter or spring, or the extreme droughts of the summer or autumn.'8
The dominant power of the federal Government, as has been repeatedly held, extends to the entire bed of a stream, which includes the lands below ordinary high water mark. The exercise of the power within these limits is not an invasion of any private property right in such lands for which the United States must make compensation.9 The damage sustained results not from a taking of the riparian owner's property in the stream bed, but from the lawful exercise of a power to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rank v. Krug
...S.Ct. 1019, 57 L.Ed. 1374, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 624; Willink v. U. S., 1916, 240 U.S. 572, 36 S.Ct. 422, 60 L.Ed. 808; U. S. v. Chicago, M. St. P. & P. R. Co., 1940, 312 U.S. 592, 313 U.S. 543, 61 S.Ct. 772, 85 L.Ed. 1064; Gibson v. U. S., 1867, 166 U.S. 269, 17 S.Ct. 578, 41 L.Ed. 996; Scranton......
-
United States v. Kansas City Life Ins Co
...but from the lawful exercise of a power to which that property has always been subject.' United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 596—597, 61 S.Ct. 772, 775, 85 L.Ed. 1064.6 The ordinary high-water mark has been accepted as the limit of the bed of the stream. In United......
-
Federal Power Commission v. State of Oregon
...to state law. United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 33 S.Ct. 667, 57 L.Ed. 1063; United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 313 U.S. 543, 61 S.Ct. 772, 85 L.Ed. 1064; United States v. Commodore Park, Inc., 324 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 803, 89 L.Ed. 101......
-
United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson
...stream in State S. The Federal Government may destroy it or require its removal without payment of compensation (United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 313 U.S. 543, 61 S.Ct. 772, 85 L.Ed. 1064), but it does not appear likely that it will do so, and the dock is a com......
-
A New Corps of Discovery for Missouri River Management
...uses in the Missouri River basin). 290. U.S. CONST. art. I, §. 8, cl. 3. SeeUnited States v. Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pac. R.R., 312 U.S. 592, 59697 (1941) (affirming the federal government' authority to flood a railroad rightofway to promote navigational improvement; the government' ......
-
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: the categorical and other "exceptions' to liability for Fifth Amendment takings of private property far outweigh the "rule".
...when they lie within the scope of the navigational servitude.") (citing United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R., 312 U.S. 592, 596-97 (171) See M & J Coal Co. v. United States, 47 F.3d 1148, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (concerning the federal Surface Mining Control and R......
-
Table of Cases
...Cherokee Nation of Okla., 480 U.S. 700, 107 S. Ct. 1487, 94 L. Ed. 2d 704 (1987):18.7(5) United States v. Chi., Milwaukee, Pac. R.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 313 U.S. 543, 61 S. Ct. 772 (1941):20.4(3) United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1968):12.5 United Stat......
-
§ 20.4 - Patents
...by the lawful exercise of a power to which the property has always been subject. See United States v. Chi., Milwaukee, Pac. R.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 596-97, 313 U.S. 543, 61 S. Ct. 772 The Washington Constitution is more limiting than the U.S. Constitution by including the term "damaged." Th......