Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): it from regulatory jurisdiction, which “extends to the entire surface and bed of all waterbodies subject to tidal action ... even though portions of such waterbodies may be extremely shallow.” 33 C.F.R. § 329.12(b). Once made, a determination of navigability applies over the entire surface of the water and “is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy the navigable capacity.” 33 C.F.R. § 209.260(c). Under this broad definition, the waters in which Gateway’s piers stand are clearly navigable. There is ample authority that under the RHA the government can remove structures that were erected lawfully but subsequently found to be in navigable waters under the RHA. See, e.g., Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber v. Garrison, 237 U.S. 251, 35 S.Ct. 551, 59 L.Ed. 939 (1915) (<HOLDING>); Donnell v. U.S., 834 F.Supp. 19, 25-27 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that secretary of war could not be enjoined from redrawing harbor lines effectively forcing owner to remove 200 feet of lawfully constructed wharf that obstructed channel widening and deepening project (B) holding that a landowner whose property was taken in a highway widening project could recover only for the lost land and not for losses caused by traffic islands constructed as part of the same project (C) holding that loss of access resulting from a median strip constructed as part of a highway widening project was a proper consideration because any factor that has a present quantifiable effect on the market value of the property is proper as an element of damages (D) holding that corps may order wharf owners to remove portion of legally constructed wharf in navigable waters to allow for construction of dock (E) holding that even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties
Output (English): holding that even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties