Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01212/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-01212-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Trespass on Public Land

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

TENNESSEE VALLEY )

AUTHORITY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 5:19-cv-1212-LCB

 )

LARRY WALCOTT, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) brought this civil action to 

enjoin the construction, mooring, and maintenance of an unauthorized structure 

floating in the Guntersville Reservoir. (Doc. 1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Larry Walcott. (Doc. 11). For the 

reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

I. Background

On March 4, 1937, Plaintiff acquired real property on and along the 

Guntersville Reservoir, referred to in TVA land records as Tract No. GR-810 (“TVA 

GR-810”). (Doc. 1 at 5). TVA GR-810 includes shoreland along Guntersville 

Reservoir and inundated real property subjacent to the Guntersville Reservoir. (Doc. 

1 at 5). On March 9, 1954, Plaintiff sold a subset of TVA GR-810 consisting of about 

FILED

 2020 Feb-27 PM 04:19

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 15
2

10.4 acres above the 600-foot contour elevation, known in the TVA land records as 

Tract No. XGR-258, to Ray W. Stewart, a predecessor-in-interest of Defendant 

(“XGR-258”). (Doc. 1 at 5–6). Under the March 9, 1954 transfer, Plaintiff retained 

flowage easement rights for temporary and intermittent flooding on land below the 

606-foot contour elevation and also granted the owner of XGR-258 the right of 

ingress and egress from the waters of Guntersville Lake over and upon the adjoining 

land on TVA GR-810 lying between the 600-foot contour elevation and the waters 

of the lake. (Doc. 1 at 6). On September 20, 2010, Defendant acquired a subset of 

XGR-258 from his predecessor-in-interest (the “Walcott Private Property”). (Doc. 1 

at 6). 

In November of 2011, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he planned to 

construct a floating structure (“the Unauthorized Structure”) in Guntersville 

Reservoir; Defendant was advised that, before beginning construction, Defendant 

would need to apply for a Section 26a permit.1(Doc. 1 at 6). On August 12, 2012, 

Defendant submitted a handwritten letter and plan to Plaintiff describing the 

structure that he intended to build. (Doc. 1 at 7). On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff 

informed Defendant of various requirements that he would have to satisfy if he 

intended to build a structure, including Section 26a and Alabama state-law 

1 Section 26a of the TVA Act authorizes the agency to issue permits for the building, 

operation, and maintenance of, among other things, obstructions affecting navigation. See 16 

U.S.C § 831y-1.

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 15
3

requirements. (Doc. 1 at 7). Defendant did not apply for a Section 26a permit before 

beginning construction of what would become the Unauthorized Structure. (Doc. 1 

at 7).

In December of 2018, without Plaintiff’s consent and without first obtaining 

a Section 26a permit, Defendant began construction of the Unauthorized Structure

on the shoreland portion of TVA GR-810 adjacent to the Walcott Private Property. 

(Doc. 1 at 7). The portion of TVA GR-810 where Defendant began construction of 

the Unauthorized Structure is real property owned in fee simple by TVA. (Doc. 1 at 

7). On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff posted a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) on the 

Unauthorized Structure advising Defendant that it was being constructed on TVA’s 

property in violation of TVA’s Section 26a regulations and that it must be removed 

within ninety days. (Doc. 1 at 7–8). On January 14, 2019, Plaintiff again informed 

Defendant that he did not have Plaintiff’s permission or authorization to construct 

the Unauthorized Structure and that it needed to be removed from Plaintiff’s 

property. (Doc. 1 at 8). On April 4, 2019, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he 

intended to continue with construction of the Unauthorized Structure and that he 

intended to launch the Unauthorized Structure from Plaintiff’s property into the 

Guntersville Reservoir. (Doc. 1 at 8). That same day, Plaintiff again told Defendant 

to stop construction of the Unauthorized Structure and directed Defendant not to 

place it into the Guntersville Reservoir. (Doc. 1 at 8). 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 15
4

On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff hand-delivered a final written notice to Defendant 

to immediately cease and desist construction of the Unauthorized Structure, remove 

it from Plaintiff’s property, and refrain from launching it into the Tennessee River 

System. (Doc. 1 at 8). At the time this notice was delivered, Plaintiff observed the 

Unauthorized Structure floating in the waters of the Guntersville Reservoir2 on an 

inundated portion of TVA GR-810 in front of the private water use facility on the 

shoreland portion of TVA GR-810. (Doc. 1 at 8–9). Plaintiff also observed heavy 

equipment tracks on the shoreland where it appeared that the Unauthorized Structure

had been dragged or pushed into the Reservoir. (Doc. 1 at 9). The inundated portion 

of TVA GR-810 where the Unauthorized Structure was floating is real property 

owned in fee simple by Plaintiff. (Doc. 1 at 9). 

On May 30, 2019, Plaintiff was informed by Alabama Marine Patrol that the 

Unauthorized Structure had damaged a private dock and a bass boat. (Doc. 1 at 9). 

The Unauthorized Structure was subsequently towed back to the area of the 

Guntersville Reservoir around TVA GR-810 and anchored. (Doc. 1 at 9). Defendant 

then moored the Unauthorized Structure to the private water use facility on the 

shoreland portion of TVA GR-810 adjacent to the Walcott Private Property. (Doc. 1 

at 9). 

2 Guntersville Reservoir is an artificial lake running seventy-six miles up the Tennessee 

River from Guntersville Dam in northeastern Alabama to Nickajack Dam in southeastern 

Tennessee; the reservoir is part of the Tennessee River System.

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 15
5

The Unauthorized Structure remains moored to the private water use facility 

on the shoreland portion of TVA GR-810 adjacent to the Walcott Private Property 

and floating in the waters of the Guntersville Reservoir over the inundated portion 

of TVA GR-810. (Doc. 1 at 9). The inundated portion of TVA GR-810 where the 

Unauthorized Structure is presently floating is real property owned in fee simple by 

Plaintiff. (Doc. 1 at 9). The private use water facility to which the Unauthorized 

Structure is moored is also on real property owned in fee simple by Plaintiff. (Doc. 

1 at 9). Plaintiff has received numerous phone calls from landowners in the vicinity 

of TVA GR-810 informing Plaintiff that the Unauthorized Structure is blocking their 

access to the Reservoir. (Doc. 1 at 10). Defendant continues to construct, moor, and 

maintain the Unauthorized Structure on Plaintiff’s property or in the Guntersville 

Reservoir and the Tennessee River System. (Doc. 1 at 10). Defendant has not sought 

Plaintiff’s permission to construct, moor, or maintain the Unauthorized Structure on 

Plaintiff’s property or the Guntersville Reservoir and the Tennessee River System, 

and Plaintiff has not otherwise permitted this obstruction. (Doc. 1 at 10). 

II. Legal Standards

a. Default judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 prescribes a two-step process for securing 

a default judgment against a party that has failed to “plead or otherwise defend” an 

action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), (b). First, once it is shown that the party has failed to 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 5 of 15
6

plead or otherwise defend the action, the Clerk of Court enters the party’s default. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, once the Clerk has entered default against the 

Defendant, the party seeking relief must move for the entry of a default judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Except where the claim is for a sum certain or a sum 

ascertainable by computation, the party must apply to the Court for the default 

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). The Court may enter the default judgment if the 

defendant is not a minor or incompetent person and there is “a sufficient basis in the 

pleadings for the judgment entered.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Surtain v. Hamlin 

Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nishimatsu Contr. 

Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Though he is not 

held to admit conclusions of law, “a defaulted defendant is deemed to [have] 

admit[ed] the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact.” Id. (quoting Cotton v. 

Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005). 

b. TVA and the Guntersville Reservoir

TVA is a constitutionally authorized executive branch corporate agency and 

instrumentality of the United States, created by and existing pursuant to the TVA 

Act of 1933, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 831–831ee. (Doc. 1 at 2). In the TVA Act, 

Congress broadly charged TVA with the construction of dams and reservoirs “in the 

Tennessee River and its tributaries.” 16 U.S.C § 831c(j). See U.S. ex rel. TVA v. 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 6 of 15
7

Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 553 (1946); U.S. ex rel. TVA v. Three Tracts of Land, 377 F. 

Supp. 631, 635 (N.D. Ala. 1974). 

The TVA Act authorizes TVA to “acquire real estate for the construction of 

dams, reservoirs . . . and other structures, and navigation projects at any point along 

the Tennessee River, or any of its tributaries[,]” 16 U.S.C § 831c(i), and provides 

that the “title to such real estate shall be taken in the name of the United States of 

America, and thereupon all such real estate shall be entrusted to [TVA] to 

accomplish the purposes of [the TVA Act].” Id. § 831c(h). The TVA Act specifically 

charges TVA with “[t]he unified development and regulation of the Tennessee River 

system,” including the Guntersville Reservoir, as agent for the United States. 16 

U.S.C. § 831y-1.

c. Section 26a of the TVA Act and TVA’s implementing 

regulations

Section 26a of the TVA Act provides that “no dam, appurtenant works, or 

other obstruction, affecting navigation, flood control, or public lands or reservations 

shall be constructed, and thereafter operated or maintained across, along, or in the 

[Tennessee] [R]iver” without approval by TVA. 16 U.S.C § 831y-1. In short, “[t]he 

language of [16 U.S.C § 831y-1] makes clear that [TVA’s] approval of plans is a 

condition precedent to the construction of any structures, that construction without 

approval is prohibited, and that [TVA] has the power to enforce this provision.” Gast 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 7 of 15
8

v. Tenn. Valley Auth., No. 4:10-CV-45, 2011 WL 864390, *9 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 10, 

2011). 

TVA’s implementing regulations also prohibit the construction of any 

obstruction along or in the Tennessee River System and any of its tributaries—

including the Guntersville Reservoir—without prior approval by TVA. 18 C.F.R. 

§ 1304.1. Thus, under Section 26a and TVA’s implementing regulations, TVA 

regulates, through its Section 26a permitting process, the construction of structures 

“affecting navigation, flood control, or public lands or reservations along or in the 

Tennessee River or any of its tributaries.” 18 C.F.R. § 1304.1. 

d. Injunctive relief

The Supreme Court has outlined a four-factor test that plaintiffs seeking 

permanent injunctive relief must satisfy. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,

547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). In such situations, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that it has 

suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary 

damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the 

balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, remedy in equity is 

warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent 

injunction.” Id. (citations omitted). See also Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Long, No. 4:12-

CV-704-VEH, 2013 WL 387933, at *2–5 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 18, 2013) (finding that 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 8 of 15
9

TVA had successfully established that a permanent injunction should issue due to 

the defendant’s Section 26a violation). 

III. Analysis

a. Defendant’s Unauthorized Structure violates Section 26a.

Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s default together establish the elements 

of a Section 26a violation. For purposes of Section 26a, “obstructions” include “boat 

docks, piers, boathouses, buoys, floats, boat launching ramps, fills, water intakes, 

devices for discharging effluent, bridges, aerial cables, culverts, pipelines, fish 

attractors, shoreline stabilization projects, channel excavations, and floating cabins.” 

18 C.F.R. § 1304.1. 

To sustain a Section 26a action, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) the Unauthorized 

Structure is an obstruction along the Tennessee River System; (2) Defendant did not 

seek approval under Section 26a from Plaintiff to construct the Unauthorized 

Structure; and (3) Defendant had neither express nor implied authority to build the 

Unauthorized Structure. See, e.g., TVA v. Jones, 199 F. Supp. 3d 1198, 1203–4 (E.D. 

Tenn. 2016). Plaintiff has proven the elements of a Section 26a action.

The Guntersville Reservoir is a part of the Tennessee River System and the 

Unauthorized Structure is located on the Guntersville Reservoir. The Unauthorized 

Structure is an obstruction because it is currently affecting navigation on the 

Guntersville Reservoir and affecting the adjoining neighbors’ access to the Reservoir 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 9 of 15
10

and other locations. Defendant exacerbated this situation when he launched the 

Unauthorized Structure into the Guntersville Reservoir, creating a navigation and 

safety hazard on the Reservoir. At the time Plaintiff filed its complaint, Defendant

had not filed a complete Section 26a permit application with Plaintiff in accordance 

with TVA’s implementing regulations. While Defendant had submitted to Plaintiff

a rough plan for a structure prior to beginning construction of the Unauthorized 

Structure, Plaintiff did not approve that plan, and it did not issue Defendant a permit. 

Thus, Defendant did not obtain a permit from Plaintiff prior to constructing the 

Unauthorized Structure, and he did not have either Plaintiff’s express or implied 

authority to build it. 

The Unauthorized Structure continues to be a violation of Section 26a and 

TVA’s regulations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Unauthorized Structure

violates Section 26a of the TVA Act.

b. The Unauthorized Structure constitutes a trespass.

Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s default also together establish the 

elements of a trespass. A trespass is “any entry on the land of another without express 

or implied authority.” Foust v. Kinney, 80 So. 474, 475 (Ala. 1918). See also

Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 158, 160 (1965). Plaintiff has shown the 

Unauthorized Structure is a trespass on TVA property.

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 10 of 15
11

Defendant’s Unauthorized Structure is located on TVA property. Defendant

does not have authority to maintain the Unauthorized Structure on TVA property 

because he never received Plaintiff’s permission or authorization to build it. The 

Unauthorized Structure continues to be moored to TVA property and is floating over 

inundated TVA property without authorization by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court finds 

that the Unauthorized Structure constitutes a trespass on TVA property. 

c. Injunctive relief is appropriate.

Plaintiff has thus established a Section 26a violation as well as a trespass over 

real property Plaintiff owns in fee. Under the Supreme Court’s four-factor test, 

Plaintiff has made a showing that injunctive relief is appropriate:

First, Plaintiff has established that it has suffered an irreparable harm. In 

contrast, the only harm Defendant will suffer will be the costs of modifying the 

Unauthorized Structure to bring it into compliance with Section 26a and TVA’s 

regulations. Irreparable harm cannot flow from an injury that can be compensated 

with money. See Ne. Fla. Chapter of Ass’n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of 

Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990); San Francisco Residence 

Club, Inc. v. O’Shea, Case No. 5:08-cv-01423-CLS, 2009 WL 10688917, at *2 

(N.D. Ala. June 20, 2009) (“Generally, mere economic loss is not irreparable 

harm.”).

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 11 of 15
12

Second, Plaintiff has shown that it cannot be sufficiently compensated by 

legal remedies. No adequate legal remedy exists for Defendant’s Section 26a 

violation and trespass because the physical presence of the Unauthorized Structure

constitutes the violation and the trespass, and because Plaintiff has unsuccessfully 

attempted, multiple times, to have Defendant remedy his violation. (Doc. 1 at 7–11).

Third, Plaintiff has established that equity favors issuing its requested 

injunction. Defendant will have to expend money, time, and effort to comply with 

the injunction Plaintiff requests. However, Defendant will ultimately benefit by 

having a structure that complies with Section 26a. Plaintiff, on the other hand, will 

suffer injuries if the Court does not issue the injunction, including Defendant’s 

continuous trespass on Government property and the resulting disruption to TVA’s 

regulatory scheme with regard to the Guntersville Reservoir. The harms to Plaintiff 

outweigh those that would be caused to Defendant. Accordingly, the balance of 

equities tips in Plaintiff’s favor.

Fourth, Plaintiff has demonstrated that issuing a permanent injunction in its 

favor would not act against the public interest. The injunction Plaintiff seeks accords 

with the public interest by reinforcing TVA’s statutorily guaranteed authority to 

regulate the Tennessee River System. It also buttresses the integrity of the federal 

government’s proprietary rights to its own land. Moreover, the injunction is not 

intrusive as it simply requires Defendant to do what Section 26a and TVA’s 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 12 of 15
13

regulations already require him to do. Finally, Plaintiff’s requested injunction is in 

the public interest because it helps to prevent obstructions such as the Unauthorized 

Structure from interfering with navigation and posing a risk to public safety. 

Section 26a provides that any structure that violates the TVA Act may be 

prevented by “injunction or order of any district court exercising jurisdiction in any 

district in which such structures or parts thereof may be situated.” 16 U.S.C § 831y1. District courts are specifically empowered to issue injunctive relief ordering the 

removal of unpermitted structures. 16 U.S.C. § 831-y. See, e.g., Long, 2013 WL 

387933, at *5 (enjoining the defendant to remove a structure located on Government 

property and in violation of Section 26a and granting TVA authority to remove the

structure from TVA property if not removed by the defendant within sixty days of 

the order); Jones, 199 F. Supp. 3d at 1203–5 (granting TVA’s request for a 

permanent injunction requiring the defendant to remove the structures erected in 

violation of Section 26a and ordering that TVA’s property be restored to its natural 

state). 

Injunctive relief is also appropriate in cases of trespass. See e.g., United States 

v. Bundy, No. 2:12-cv-0804-LDG-GWF, 2013 WL 3463610, at *3 (D. Nev. July 9, 

2013) (“[T]he United States is entitled to injunctive relief as a matter of law once 

trespass on federal lands is proven.”); United States v. Newcome, No. 2:04-CV-650, 

2005 WL 2230205, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2005) (issuing injunction because “in 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 13 of 15
14

the absence of evidence of permission, all structures and obstructions . . . which are 

located [on the Government’s flowage easement] below 890 feet msl must be 

removed”).

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to 

Defendant Larry Walcott (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to the 

injunctive relief it has requested in its motion. 

It is therefore ORDERED that:

(1) Within thirty days of the Court’s Judgment, Defendant Larry Walcott 

shall submit to TVA a written modification plan that includes size and location 

specifications that comply with TVA’s Section 26a regulations. TVA will then 

advise Walcott, in writing, whether the plan submitted by Walcott conforms to 

TVA’s regulations.

(2) Within ninety days of TVA’s advising Walcott that his submitted

modification plan conforms to TVA’s regulations, Walcott shall bring the 

Unauthorized Structure into compliance with TVA’s regulations.

(3) If Walcott does not bring the Unauthorized Structure into compliance

with TVA’s regulations on or before the expiration of the 90-day period, TVA shall 

have leave to file a motion for an amended judgment requesting permission to 

remove the Unauthorized Structure from the Tennessee River System, including the 

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 14 of 15
15

Guntersville Reservoir and any real property owned by TVA, in addition to 

reimbursement from Walcott of the costs incurred by TVA for the removal.

(4) If TVA determines that the Unauthorized Structure, as modified, 

complies with TVA’s regulations, TVA will then determine whether a Section 26a 

permit can be issued. TVA shall not unreasonably withhold approval of any 

modification plan by Walcott but may condition such approval on terms and 

conditions consistent with good engineering practice and environmental protection 

considerations routinely followed by TVA and required of TVA contractors, such as 

TVA’s “best management practices.” See Buck Mountain Cmty. Org. v. TVA, 629 F. 

Supp. 2d 785, 789 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) (“[T]he EA [environmental assessment] lists 

a number of mitigation measures to be taken by TVA, including following best 

management practices[.]”).

A separate final judgment will issue. 

DONE and ORDERED this February 27, 2020.

 _________________________________

 LILES C. BURKE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-01212-LCB Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 15 of 15