Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138408
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:02:57+00:00

Document:
26 use for which compensation must be made.94 Indeed, "an owner of land adjacent to navigable waters, whose fast lands are left uninvaded, has no private riparian rights of access" for which the Government must compensate when destroying that access by an authorized change in the navigable waters.95 Similarly, riparian rights of access to navigable waters to do such things as fishing and boating cannot, as against federal control over commerce, be bought and sold.96 And because of the dominant federal "right to use the bed of the water for every purpose which is in aid of navigation," destruction of oyster beds resulting from a channel improvement is not compensable.97 Also, compensation will be denied for dam- age to a structure placed in the bed of a navigable water irrespective of its physical interference with navigation.98 A "taking" of property does not arise from a requirement for alteration of a bridge obstructing navigation.99 Even if the obstruction be created with the sanction of a state, the rule remains the same.100 Federal power to remove obstructions to commerce is "superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants."101 Holding it "inconceivable" that the "running water in a great navigable stream is capable of private ownership," the "Gibson v. United States, 166 U. S. 269, 276 (1897). See also Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141,163-164 (1900); Stockton v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co., 32 Fed. 9, 20 (G. 0. D. N. J. 1887) ; HawJcins Point Light-House Case, 39 Fed. 77, 87-88 (G. C. D. Md. 1889). " United States v. Commodore Park, Inc., 324 U. S. 386, 391 (1945). The Court also pointed out that the United States has power to block navigation at one point in order to foster it at another. 324 U. S. at 394. Cf. United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U. S. 411, 417-418 (1926). 96 324 U. S. at 391. " Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 229 U. S. 82, 87 (1913). In this connection, it should be noted that Congress has recently provided that the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to determine claims for damages to oyster growers upon private or leased lands or bottoms, arising from dredging operations in making river and harbor improvements. Act of June 25,1948, § 1, 62 Stat. 941, 28 U. S. C. 1497. 88 United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 312 U. S. 592, 599 (1941). "Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 194, 206-207 (1911). Cf. West Chicago Street R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 506, 524 (1906). 100 Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 401 (1907). 161 Sanitary District v. United States, 266 XL S. 405, 426 (1925).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.