Thus, plaintiff had no property since he did not qualify under terms of statute. Forest Service's notification of water right holder that under Columbia River Gorge Act, its proposal to build commercial hydroelectric facility was prohibited No taking of water right. Issue is whether without Act, approval of proposal would have been likely. Thus, plaintiff's desire to develop its water right by use change is not based on reasonable expectancy. Parkridge Investors Ltd. v. Farmers Home Admin.
Plaintiffs have no property interest in marketing almonds free of regulation.
Regulation of almond industry has been fact of life for 40 years, and plaintiffs, active participants throughout this period, must be deemed to have accepted such regulation. Further, commercial dealers must contend with possibility that legislative scheme will be buttressed from time to time. CRS Report No. Also left out are decisions that ruled on a taking claim only in passing, and found no taking. A closer question of inclusion was presented by two cases in which courts rejected a statutory interpretation seen as likely to bring about takings, in favor of an alternative reading viewed as unlikely to do so.