Case ID: us-ct-cl_39/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McKenna", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS C. BEDFORD ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [36 C. Cls. R., 474; 192 U. S. R., 217.]
    
      On the claimants' Appeal.
    
    In the spring of 1876 the Mississippi breaks through De Soto Point, taking a new course. The current striking against the west bank below Vicksburg is deflected thence upon the claimants’ land lower down the river. The cause of the deflection is the change in the course of the stream and the increased velocity of- the current. Between 1878 and 1884 the Government constructs a revetment for the purpose of preventing the further erosion of the bank. The revetment does not change the course of the river, but operates to keep it. as it is. If the revetment were not built, the cut-off would continue to widen and the deflection of the stream upon the claimants’ land would grow less. The injury to the claimants’ land is an effect of natural causes; the injury caused by the Government is by interrupting the further progress of natural causes— i.e., the further change in the course of the river.
    The court below decides:
    1. In 1878 the officers of the Government were authorized by statute to improve the Mississippi River in the interest of navigation. The construction of a revetment intended to confine the river to its then existing channel was within the limits of their authority.
    2. The povrer to control and improve navigable rivers is derived from the Constitution:'
    3. Riparian ownership is subject to the dominant right of the Government to improve navigation. 'Where the injury to private property is merely incidental to the exercise of the Government’s right, it is not a taking of private property for public use.
    4. Where though a continuing injury to riparian property will result, the Government is not bound to delay river improvements until a continuation of natural causes shall diminish the injury.
    5. It is now settled that no implied contract can arise where the Government takes property claiming title thereto.
    6. Though the injury to a party’s lands may be diminished in course of time by further erosion of a river bank and the consequent shifting of the channel, and the Government by building revetments prevents that beneficial change, the fact remains that the injury is the effect of natural causes, as to which no contract can be implied.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 18, 1904.