United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-5039 

NORTHWEST LOUISIANA FISH & GAME 

 PRESERVE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

William P. Crews, Jr., William P. Crews, Jr., LLC, of Natchitoches, Louisiana, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

Mark R. Haag, Attorney, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With 

him on the brief were Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General, and Kathryn E. 

Kovacs, Attorney. Of counsel was Kathryn J. Barton, Attorney. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Nancy B. Firestone 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

 

2008-5039 

NORTHWEST LOUISIANA FISH & GAME PRESERVE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 02-CV-1031, Judge 

Nancy B. Firestone. 

___________________________ 

DECIDED: July 31, 2009 

___________________________ 

Before LOURIE, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge, RADER. Additional View filed by Circuit 

Judge, RADER. 

RADER, Circuit Judge. 

The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Northwest Louisiana 

Fish & Game Preserve Commission’s Fifth Amendment taking claim based on the 

United States’ construction and operation of a navigation project on the Red River. 

Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that the Commission’s 

property interest arose from access to and use of a navigable waterway, this court 

affirms. 
I. 

The Red River rises in the Texas panhandle and flows east along the TexasOklahoma and Texas-Arkansas borders, then south into Louisiana, eventually emptying 

into the Atchafalaya and Mississippi Rivers. The State of Louisiana built the Allen Dam 

to maintain water levels and prevent backwater flooding of the Red River. The Allen 

Dam created three lakes: Black Lake, Clear Lake, and Saline Lake. Black Lake and 

Clear Lake are connected. In fact, the local community often calls them the Black/Clear 

Lake. In 1926, the State of Louisiana established the Northwest Louisiana Fish & 

Game Preserve Commission (“Commission”) to enhance wildlife and fishery habitat and 

recreational opportunities in the area. 

The Saline Bayou tributary connects Black/Clear Lake to the Red River. Water 

released from Black/Clear Lake flows through Saline Bayou for ten miles before 

emptying into the Red River. In the past, the Commission controlled fish population and 

aquatic vegetation growth in Black/Clear Lake by draining, or drawing down, the lake 

into the Red River through the Saline Bayou. 

In 1968, Congress authorized the “Red River Navigational Project” with the intent 

of improving navigation to allow year-round navigation on the Red River. The project 

increased water depths along the Red River by constructing five lock and dam 

combinations at various points along the river. The area of the Red River between each 

successive lock and dam combination constitutes a pool. The locks and dams operate 

to insure that each pool is sufficiently deep to allow for year-round navigation. 

The Saline Bayou connects Black/Clear Lake to the area of the Red River that 

constitutes Pool 3. Before the locks, the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

2008-5039 2
(“Corps”) maintained Pool 3 at a depth of eighty-seven feet above mean sea level 

(“MSL”). Because the Saline Bayou empties into Pool 3, the water level at that point in 

the river directly affects the draw down potential of the Saline Bayou and hence, 

Black/Clear Lake. 

In 1982, the Allen Dam failed. In response, the State constructed an emergency 

closure to prevent the total drainage of Black/Clear Lake. Following the failure, the 

Commission sought approval to construct a new dam. The new dam—known as the 

Black/Clear Lake Dam—was subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1344. The Corps issued the permit, which included a 

clause that provided that the United States “does not assume any liability” for “damages 

to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities 

undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.” 

After construction of the Black/Clear Lake Dam, the Commission periodically 

released large amounts of water into the Red River in order to lower the water level and 

control the growth of unwanted aquatic vegetation. Using this procedure, the 

Commission maintained acceptable levels of fish and plant growth in Black/Clear Lake. 

The last scheduled draw down of Black/Clear Lake occurred in the fall of 1994, lowering 

the level of the lake by eight feet. 

In early 1995, the Corps raised the level of Pool 3 to ninety-five feet MSL, eight 

feet MSL above its previous level. At this water level, the Commission could only lower 

Black/Clear Lake by a maximum of 4.5 feet, between 3.5 and 6.5 feet less than what the 

Commission required to prevent unwanted aquatic growth. The uncontrolled growth of 

aquatic weeds began to cause significant damage by early 1995. 

2008-5039 3
In late 1996, the Commission requested the Corps to lower the water level of the 

Red River to allow for the draw down of Black/Clear Lake. The Commission contended 

that the new water level in Pool 3 limited its ability to control the growth of unwanted 

vegetation. The Corps denied the Commission’s request. By early 1997, severe 

hydrilla and coontail infestation began to occur, allegedly making some parts of the 

Lake useless for recreation. 

The Commission has been seeking redress since 1997 for the alleged 

condemnation of the preserve as a result of the United States’ construction and 

operation of the Red River Navigational Project. The Commission first filed a complaint 

in state court, which was subsequently removed to federal court and dismissed. The 

dismissal was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, where that court affirmed the dismissal. Nw. 

La. Fish & Game Pres. Comm’n v. Red River Waterway Comm’n, 220 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 

2000) (unpublished per curiam). The Commission next filed an administrative claim 

sounding in tort against the government that was eventually transferred to the United 

States Court of Federal Claims. Nw. La. Fish & Game Pres. Comm’n v. United States, 

62 Fed. Cl. 760, 761 (2004). 

On March 31, 2004, the government filed a Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or under Rule 

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of 

Federal Claims dismissed on the basis that the claim was not filed within the Tucker 

Act’s six-year statute of limitations. Id. at 768. The Commission then appealed to the 

Federal Circuit. This court reversed the Court of Federal Claims, holding that the 

statute of limitations did not begin to run until 1997, after the appearance of significant 

2008-5039 4
growth of aquatic weeds in Black/Clear Lake and the Corps’ refusal to lower the water 

level in Pool 3. Nw. La. Fish & Game Pres. Comm’n v. United States, 446 F.3d 1285 

(Fed. Cir. 2006). 

On remand, the Court of Federal Claims requested supplemental briefing on the 

remaining issues and on October 31, 2007, granted in part and denied in part the United 

States’ motion to dismiss. Nw. La. Fish & Game Preserve Comm’n v. United States, 79 

Fed. Cl. 400 (2007). The Court of Federal Claims entered judgment dismissing the 

claims sounding in tort. Id. at 406. The court also dismissed the taking claim based on 

the inability to control water levels and aquatic growth in Black/Clear Lake as barred by 

the navigational servitude. Id. at 411. The Court of Federal Claims declined to grant 

judgment on the Commission’s claim that the backwater from Pool 3 and other flooding 

resulted in a physical invasion. Id. at 411-12. The court noted that if the Commission 

could demonstrate such a physical invasion, it may be entitled to compensation. Thus, 

the taking claim based on physical invasion, e.g., due to backwater flooding, is still 

pending before the Court of Federal Claims. That court certified its judgment for 

interlocutory appeal under its Rule 54(b). 

The Commission timely appealed to this Court. On appeal, the Commission 

submits that the Court of Federal Claims erred when it dismissed its taking claim as 

barred by the navigational servitude. The Commission does not challenge the dismissal 

of its claims sounding in tort. 

II. 

This Court reviews without deference the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. Samish Indian Nation v. 

2008-5039 5
United States, 419 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed Cir. 2005). When considering a motion to 

dismiss, the trial court views well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true. 

Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

The Fifth Amendment instructs that private property shall not “be taken for public 

use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The taking calculus first 

identifies the private party’s property interest; then the analysis weighs whether that 

property has been deprived or abridged sufficiently to qualify as “taken.” Members of 

Peanut Quota Holder Ass’n v. United States, 421 F.3d 1323, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In 

other words, a compensable Fifth Amendment taking requires a showing that the 

Government has taken a legally protected property right. United States v. Willow River 

Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 503 (1945). Not all property interests are legally protected 

property rights. “[O]nly those economic [interests] are ‘rights’ which have the law [in] 

back of them, and only when they are so recognized may courts compel others . . . to 

compensate for their invasion.” Id. at 502. 

The Commerce Clause confers upon Congress “a unique position” with respect 

to navigable waters. United States v. R.B. Rands, 389 U.S. 121, 122 (1967). “The 

power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the 

extent necessary, of all navigable waters of the United States.” Id. at 122-23 (quoting 

Gilman v. City of Phil., 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 713, 724-25 (1866)) (emphasis added). This 

power to regulate navigation confers upon the United States a “dominant servitude” on 

navigable waters. Id. at 123. As a result, conflicts of interest between riparian owners 

and the Government are not to be reconciled as between equals, “but the private 

interest must give way to a superior right, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say 

2008-5039 6
that as against the Government such private interest is not a right at all.” Willow, 324 

U.S. at 510. An interest that “arises from access to, and use of, navigable waters” falls 

within the Government’s dominant servitude, and any private interest is subservient to 

that servitude. R.B. Rands, 389 U.S. at 124-25. 

The Government’s navigational servitude is derived from the principle that all 

navigable waters in the United States are considered public property. Owen v. United 

States, 851 F.2d 1404, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). This court has acknowledged 

the extraordinary priority given to navigable waters, noting that they are under the 

“exclusive control of the federal government.” Id. The physical limits of the dominant 

servitude include “the entire . . . stream, which includes the lands below ordinary high 

water mark.” United States v. Chi. Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pac. R.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 

596-97 (1941). The dominant servitude defines the limits within which Congress can 

work to improve navigation without creating an obligation to pay just compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment. Owen, 851 F.2d at 1408. The Supreme Court has 

explained that the proper exercise of the Government’s dominant servitude in these 

areas does not constitute 

an invasion of any private property right in such lands for which the United 

States must make compensation. 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 which that property has always been subject. 

Chi. Milwaukee, 312 U.S. at 596-97. As a dominant servitude, it “can be asserted to the 

exclusion of any competing or conflicting one.” United States v. Twin City Power Co., 

350 U.S. 222, 224-25 (1956). 

2008-5039 7
III. 

 This case arises from a conflict between the Commission’s responsibility to 

maintain a natural preserve and the Corps’ responsibility to maintain year-round 

navigation along the Red River. In the first instance, this court must consider whether 

the “property right” asserted is in fact a legally protectable property right. Willow, 324 

U.S. at 502-03. 

 Whether an interest is a protectable right under the Fifth Amendment takes into 

consideration such things as “the navigable or non-navigable nature of the waters from 

which [the grievant] advantages,” and “whether the conflict is with another private 

riparian interest or with a public interest in navigation.” Id. In Willow, a hydroelectric 

plant that operated under the head produced by the elevation difference between the 

Willow River and the St. Croix River sought compensation for impaired efficiency of its 

plant after the Government raised the water level of the St. Croix by three feet. The 

Supreme Court held that the Willow River Power Company (Willow Power) did not have 

a legally protected right in the level of the St. Croix River as a run-off for tail waters of its 

hydroelectric power plant. Id. at 509-11. 

 The Court reasoned that because the Willow River was a navigable river and the 

conflict did not arise between private riparian interests but between a private riparian 

owner and the public interests within the navigational servitude, Willow Power’s interest 

in the level of the St. Croix River was subservient to the Government’s dominant 

servitude. Id. at 509-10. Willow Power’s interest “constituted a privilege or a 

convenience, enjoyed for many years, permissible so long as compatible with 

navigation interests, but it is not an interest protected by law when it becomes 

2008-5039 8
inconsistent with plans authorized by Congress for improvement of navigation.” Id. at 

509. Although both the Government and Willow Power had interests in the water level 

of the St. Croix, these interests were not to be “reconciled as between equals, but the 

private interest must give way to a superior right.” Id. at 510. The Government had not 

taken a legally protected property right from Willow Power and thus was not required to 

pay compensation because Willow Power’s interest arose from access to a navigable 

waterway. Id. at 511. 

 On appeal, Appellants argue that their property interest does not fall within the 

Government’s servitude for two principle reasons: (1) Saline Bayou is not a navigable 

waterway and (2) Black/Clear Lake is simply outside of the navigational servitude. 

First, regardless of the navigability of the Saline Bayou, the Red River is a 

navigable waterway. The ability to draw down Black/Clear Lake depends on the water 

levels of not only the Saline Bayou, but also of the Red River. In this case, the water 

level of Pool 3 was originally at eighty-seven feet MSL. In early 1995, it was raised to 

ninety-five feet MSL, an increase of eight feet MSL. 

As was the case in Willow, the Commission’s property interest in draining water 

into the Red River depends on “access to, and use of, navigable waters.” Willow, 324 

U.S. at 503. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded: 

 to the extent the [appellant] bases its takings claim on the ability to drain 

from Black/Clear Lake into the Red River, which requires the elevation of 

the Red River to be below a certain level, the plaintiff’s property interest is 

subservient to the navigational servitude. 

Nw. La. Fish & Game Pres. Comm’n v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 400, 411 (2007). 

Because the Commission’s interest is subservient to the Government’s dominant 

servitude, it is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. 

2008-5039 9
 Turning to the Appellant’s second argument, the Government’s navigational 

servitude does not create a blanket exception to Fifth Amendment takings. See Kaiser 

Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) (considering whether there was a physical 

invasion). The servitude encompasses the power to regulate the stream itself and the 

lands beneath the ordinary high-water mark (“OHWM”). The Government must 

compensate for any taking of property above the OHWM. See, e.g., Baskett v. United 

States, 8 Cl. Ct. 201, 209 (1985); Tri-State Materials Corp. v. United States, 550 F.2d 1, 

5 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Goose Creek Hunting Club, Inc. v. United States, 518 F.2d 579, 583 

(Ct. Cl. 1975). The Appellants submit that Black/Clear Lake falls well outside the 

physical OHWM of the Red River and that, even if the Government’s actions were within 

the OHWM, the effects spread outside of the OHWM and amount to a compensable 

taking. 

 This court has recognized that Government action with effects outside the 

OHWM may amount to a compensable taking. See Owen, 851 F.2d at 1418. In Owen, 

the Corps dredged and widened portions of the Tombigbee River. Id. at 1406-07. The 

dredging caused an increase in water speed and drastically increased erosion of the 

river bank. The erosion eventually undermined the land owner’s property and caused 

her house to collapse into the river. Id. In weighing Owen’s property interest against 

the Government’s interest in controlling navigable waters, this court concluded that a 

compensable taking had occurred, even though the water had not been raised above its 

OHWM and was therefore technically within the government’s dominant servitude: 

 [T]he allegedly taken property was the native soil and rock which, although 

below the high-water mark, supported the fast land and house located 

beyond the high-water mark . . . . There must also be horizontal limits to 

the “bed” of a river; otherwise, the navigational servitude would extend 

2008-5039 10
2008-5039 11

infinitely in all directions and swallow up any claim for “just compensation” 

under the Fifth Amendment for damages occurring anywhere below the 

elevation of the high-water mark. 

Id. at 1410. This case, however, does not present a situation analogous to Owen. 

Here, the Commission’s property interest—the ability to draw down the 

Black/Clear Lake in order to control unwanted aquatic weed growth—arises from 

access to, and use of navigable waters. See, e.g., Willow, 324 U.S. at 503. As such, 

the Court of Federal Claims properly found that the Commission’s economic value in the 

property arose from access to and use of a navigable waterway. Thus, the navigational 

servitude bars the Commission’s taking claim. 

IV. 

To the extent that the Commission asserts a taking of its ability to draw down 

Black/Clear Lake in order to control unwanted aquatic weed growth, that interest is 

subservient to the Government’s navigational servitude. Because the Court of Federal 

Claims properly dismissed the Commission’s claim as barred by the navigational 

servitude, this court affirms. 

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

 

2008-5039 

NORTHWEST LOUISIANA FISH & GAME PRESERVE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 02-CV-1031, Judge 

Nancy B. Firestone. 

RADER, Circuit Judge, additional view. 

While I endorse the reasoning and results of the panel, I write separately to 

highlight a distressing ambiguity in this court’s binding precedent. Neither this court nor 

the Supreme Court has proffered any material basis justifying a different treatment of 

navigation versus other Fifth Amendment public purposes. Why should navigation be 

received any differently than highway transportation, public safety, or environmental 

protection? In light of the special protections afforded to navigation, it seems only 

prudent that such a material basis be provided.