OCR Text |
Show 27 Supreme Court in 1913 held that a governmental change- primarily for benefit of navigation and incidentally for develop- ment of power-in the flow of a navigable stream does not require compensation to a riparian owner for depriving him of the use of the stream for development of power.102 However, where a federal navigation improvement in a navigable stream results in the flooding of land in and adjacent to a nonnavigable tributary stream, the owners of the land along and under the bed of the nonnavigable stream are entitled to compensation for the damage to their lands, and compensa- tion is required for the loss of power head at a dam in the nonnavigable tributary caused by a resulting change in the level of the tributary .1(>3 On the other hand, compensation will be denied for a reduction in power head caused by a fed- eral navigation dam raising the level of a navigable stream into which the private owner drops water from his dam built on a nonnavigable tributary.104 The difference in results in the two situations, according to a recent explanation by the Court, is that the loss of power head in the former case was done at points beyond the bed of the navigable stream, whereas in the latter it occurred within the bed.105 102 United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53, 69, 73, 76 (1913). See also United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U. S. 499, 508-509 (1945) ; Continental Land Co. v. United States, 88 F. 2d 104,109-110 (C. A. 9, 1937), cert, den., 302 U. S. 715 (1937) ; Washington Water Power Co. v. United States, 135 F. 2d 541, 543 (C. A. 9, 1943), cert, den., 320 U. S. 747 (1943). But cf. Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro, 335 U. S. 359 (1948). In this connection, see references to legislative action con- cerning waters in the West, infra, pp. 35-50. 148 United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316 (1917). See also Henry Ford <& Sons, Inc. v. Little Falls Fibre Co., 280 U. S. 360, 377 (1930) ; United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 312 U. S. 502, 597 (1941); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U. S. 499, 504-507 (1945) ; United States v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 339 U. S. 799, 806-808 (1950). 104 United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U. S. 499 (1945). See also United States v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 339 U. S. 799, 805, 807 (1950). im United States v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 339 U. S. 799, 807 (1950). But see the views of four dissenting justices advocating overruling of United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316 (1917), and saying that "It would be incongruous to deny compensation to owners adjacent to navigable rivers and require it for others bordering their tributaries for like injuries caused by the single |