Case Name: UNITED STATES v. ARCHER
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1916-05-01
Citations: 241 U.S. 119
Docket Number: No. 112
Parties: UNITED STATES v. ARCHER.
Judges: Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 241
Pages: 119–148

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. ARCHER.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. .
No. 112.
Argued December 7, 1915.
Decided May 1, 1916.
As questions of fact confront the court before a decision can be reached on the proposition of law herein involved, and the finding1 of fact on which the court below based petitioner’s right of recovery for lands appropriated as a result of construction and extension of dikes by the Mississippi River Commission acting under authority of Congress are not sufficiently definite; this court, without expressing any opinion and reserving all questions of law, remands the case to the Court of Claims, for more particular findings on the testimony already taken or, in the discretion of the court, on further testimony.
Qucere whether the liability to the owner of a tract of land part of which was taken for erection of a dike in a navigable river is limited to compensation for the area actually occupied by the dike itself under Bedford v. United States, 192 U. S. 217 and Jackson v. United States, 230 U. S. 1, or includes compensation for the remainder of the tract destroyed by the deflection upon it of waters of the river by reason of the construction and maintenance of the dike under United, States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S. 180.
47 Ct. CL 248, reversed.
Petition in the Court of Claims for the recovery of $300,000 for damages alleged to havp been caused by the officers and agents of tbe United States under the authority of an act' of Congress creating the Mississippi River Commission by the construction and extending of a dike known as the Leland Dike upon the land of petitioners, called the Point Chicot Plantation.
A demurrer to the petition was overruled and after answer and hearing judgment was rendered for claimants in the sum of $54,920, to review which this appeal is prosecuted.
The findings were necessarily voluminous; we condense them narratively as follows: Claimants’ plantation prior to the construction of the levee system to the state of completion which now exists was of great value and in a high state of cultivation, being reclaimed lands comparatively free from overflows of the Mississippi river except at intervals, the recurrence of such overflows being so separated in point of time as not to materially affect either the value or the productive capacity of the plantation. It was highly improved with houses and cabins thereon and stocked with laborers and tenants and yielded large crops.
It has been overflowed at certain rises of the water in the river .(the rise in feet, according to certain data, is given from 1844 to 1910), and during the twenty years following 1891 after the levee system had been made effective there were eight years during which it was not overflowed.
Gauges of the height of the water are taken at Memphis and Greenville. Claimants’ plantation is overflowed whenever the water rises to 135 feet, Memphis datum, and it has been more or less overflowed every year except two years (1872 and 1889) during the eighteen years prior to 1891, up to which time the levee system had not been completed sufficiently to withstand great floods and the outlets unclosed; and during the twenty years following 1891 after the levee system had been made effective and the outlets closed by the United States and the local authorities, there were eight years, namely, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1905, and 1910, during which claimants’ land was not overflowed.
The plantation is overflowed at a stage of 38 feet on the Greenville gauge, or whenever the surface water rises to 135 feet, Memphis datum, and the gauge readings show that of the fifteen years from 1882 to 1896, inclusive, there were only four years in which this stage, was not exceeded, and that for the fourteen years from 1897 to 1910, inclusive, there were five years in which this stage of 38 feet on the Greenville gauge was not exceeded.
From time immemorial the waters of the river during its highest stages when not contained within the low-water banks have naturally found outlets through certain basins (they are mentioned) and through the rivers draining them into the Gulf of Mexico. And the plantations that were not overflowed so frequently before such outlets were closed by levee construction were consequently little injured by overflows.
Prior to 1883 the State and local authorities constructed a system of levees, miles of which were destroyed in 1882.
Beginning in 1883 the officers of the. United States under the authority of an act of Congress creating the Mississippi River Commission and other acts amendatory thereof adopted the so-called Eads plan, and in consequence thereof have projected and constructed levees on both sides of the river for various distances from Cairo, Illinois, to near the Head of the Passes, -a distance of. 1050 miles from Cairo; and the local authorities along the river on both sides from Cairo to the Gulf have before and since also constructed and maintained levees at various places - and of various lengths for the purpose of protecting and reclaiming land within their respective districts.
The levee lines so constructed by the United States and local authorities have been practically joined, with the result of confining the river within a narrow scope, increasing its velocity and elevation and the strength of its current. The highest elevation is approximately six feet in times of high water, and the plan of the United States was to increase the scouring power of the water, deepen the channel and improve navigation, and that of the local authorities to reclaim , and to protect the land on both sides of the river from overflowing at times of high water.
Prom time immemorial the high-water bed of the river has been between the highlands on the east side and the highlands on the west side and the claimants’ plantation is within this boundary, that is, between the highlands on the Mississippi side and the highlands on the Arkansas side, and has been occasionally overflowed at times of high water, as stated above, before as well as since the construction of the levees.
From Cairo to the. mouth of the Yazoo river the Mississippi river is practically leveed on both sides, except on the east side where the high lands abut on or very near the river in Kentucky and Tennessee, and there is a gap in-the line of levees of 234 miles from the mouth of the Yazoo river to Baton Rouge unleveed.
The extension of the levee system has resulted in an increased elevation of the general flood levels which subjects claimants’ land to a deeper overflow than they were subjected to formerly and consequently has somewhat reduced it's value for agricultural purposes. The immediate cause of the deeper overflow on claimants’ land is the increased elevation of the flood heights, which is the result of the general confinement of the flood discharge by the levee system as a whole.
During the flood waters of 1882 the levees failed throughout the length of the river. In 1884 the crevasses were still open in all basins. They were open and closed in subsequent years (which are given); they were all closed in 1904 to 1910. In consequence of the closing of the natural basins, outlets and crevasses, overflowed lands on both sides of the river have been reclaimed and protected from overflow in times of high water and vast benefit has accrued to the States of Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, but the land of claimants, situated between the levees and outside thereof and not protected thereby, has been subjected to repeated overflow, tending to diminish and impair its value, but to what extent does not satisfactorily appear from the evidence.
A part of the levee system runs back of claimants’ plantation, not touching the same, and between it and thé plantation is a stretch of ground lower than the main body of the plantation, and in periods of high water the water, rising and passing over and upon said land, has by reason of its lowness first gone thereupon and its main current was across said land and not upon the plantation, which, while in extreme high water it would be flooded, did not have the full force of the current of the river but was covered in part or in whole by slacker water. The current during high-water seasons struck against the levee back of claimants’ plantation, eroding and washing it away, to the great danger of its existence and the inundation of the lands to the rear thereof and diverting the water from the channel of the river. A breach or crevasse in the levee would have entailed damage to it and to the adjacent landowners and impaired the efficacy of the levee system as projected, constructed and maintained by the officers of the Mississippi River Commission in accordance with the plans heretofore stated.
In áddition to the danger to the levee the current, impinging upon the banks of the stream and the neck of the land adjoining Point Chicot to the mainland, cutting into it, threatened to and would have, if permitted to continue, cut through the neck of land, thus straightening the channel and making the plantation an island.
In order to prevent the threatened danger to the levees and the neck of land the officers of the United States, acting under the authority of the acts of Congress, and the Mississippi River Commission constructed what is known as the Leland Dike, running diagonally and at an angle from the main line of levee on the Arkansas side across and ón the land of claimants to a point 662 feet beyond where the line of the plantation begins, their object being to divert the current of the stream during high waters from impinging upon the levee, and, by throwing it northeastward by the dike, to prevent the destruction of the levee and the cutting across the neck of land.
The dike first went into and on the land a distance of 662 feet, but, its end being exposed to the waters of the river and to its powerful current, the officers deemed it necessary to extend the dike a distance of some 2700 feet farther upon the land of claimants and did so extend it in 1907 without any condemnation of the land and with no remuneration therefor being made to claimants. A large part of the soil was used for this construction.
Before the United States joined the levee lines in accordance with the Eads plan, thus making the same continuous, there were occasional overflows of the plantation but they have been made deeper and more forceful by the adoption of such system. But before the erection of the dike the overflows did not materially damage the plantation and it remained still valuable for agricultural purposes. By the extension of the dike the high-water current of the river has been deflected over and across a large part of the plantation, but flows in the same direction as did a portion of the high waters of the river before the erection of the dike — but with greater force and depth — the escape of a portion of the high waters over and across the neck of land being thereby prevented, in consequence of which the overflows of the plantation have been greatly increased and intensified, the result of which has been to wash and scour out its top soil and to deposit upon a large part of the plantation great burdens of sand and gravel, and 3,696 acres have been thereby rendered totally unfit for cultivation or any other profitable use. This result has been caused partly by the joining of the levee systems and the erection of said dike, but directly and proximately by the erection of said dike.
The lines of levees constructed in part by the. officers of the United-States and in part by the officers and agents of the local organizations of the States bordering on the river to 1909 had a length of 1,548 miles and contained 229,729,354 cubic yards. The officers of the United States constructed 1,050 miles of the total.. Since 1909 the authorities of the United States have built additional lines of levees containing 2,970,224 cubic yards and the local authorities lines of levees containing 5,063,427 cubic yards, thus bringing the work of levee construction up to the year 1910.
The 3,696 acres of land damaged as stated was, at the time of the erection of the dike, of the value of $83,920, and 31-4/10 acres of the same is actually and wholly occupied by the United States by the construction of the dike, and the balance, to-wit, 3,664-6/10 acres, has been destroyed and rendered wholly unfit for cultivation or any other profitable use. The land is described.
As an ultimate fact, the court finds, in so far as it is a question of fact, the 3,696 acres of land was somewhat impaired in value by the construction of the levee system, but that its use was totally destroyed by the erection of the Leland Dike and was thereby taken, its value at the time of such destruction and taking being $83,920.
Before this suit was brought George F. Archer, one of the claimants, brought a suit in the United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Arkansas against the Board of. Levee Inspectors of Chicot County, Arkansas, for the damages arising from the erection of said dike and the taking of the 3Í-4/10 acres of land. A demurrer by the defendants to the complaint was overruled (128 Fed. Rep. 125); and thereafter and before the beginning of this suit Archer discontinued the suit brought against the Board.
The ownership of the plantation by the claimants was found. From the findings of fact the court concluded that claimants were entitled to a judgment of $54,920.
The Solicitor General, with whom Mr. Robert Szold was on the brief, for the United States:
Liability of the Government for damages is limited to land actually occupied by the Leland Dike. Jackson Case, 230. U. S. 1; Hughes Case, 230 U. S. 24.
Occupancy of part of claimants’ land creates no liability for remote damages to the balance. United States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S. 180.
Mr. Percy Bell for appellee:
Taking and using dike site without condemnation or compensation by the agents, officers, and employees of the Government in improving navigation, or protecting a levee as incident thereto, a virtual trespass and actual taking which creates an undisputed liability.
The superimposition of sand and gravel on adjacent lands of same tract, as the immediate result of the construction of the dike, so as to destroy their value and prevent their use by the owners, is a destruction thereof which constitutes a taking and creates a liability for the value thereof.
The destruction of adjacent lands of owners in same tract, as the immediate result of the dike, and its effect as intended and foreseen by the builders thereof, constitutes a taking and creates a liability for the value thereof.
The value of lands was fixed as of the time of taking.
In support of these propositions, see Fawcett v. United States, 25 Ct., Cl. 188; Grant v. United States, 1 Ct. Cl. 41; King v. United States, 59 .Fed. Rep. 9; M. <fc C. By. v. B., S. & T. By., 18 L. R. A. 166; Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473; Mérrima v. United States, 29 Ct. Cl. 250; Mills v. United States,' 19 Ct. Cl. 79; Morris v. United States, 30 Ct. Cl. 324; Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall'. 166; Sharp- v. United States, 191 U. S. .351; United States v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U. S. 645; United States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S. 180; United. States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445; Welch v. United States, 217 U. S. 33; Williams v. United States, 104 Fed. Rep. 50.
The following cases cited by the United States are considered and distinguished: Bedford v. United States, 192 U. S. 217; Levee Commissioners v. Harkleroads, 62 Mississippi, 807; Fort Smith By. v. Schulte, 109 Arkansas, 575; Greenleaf Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U. S. 251; High Bridge Lumber Co. v. United States, 69 Fed. Rep. 320; Hughes v. United States} '230 U. S. 24; Jackson v. United States, 230 U. S. 1; McCoy v. Plum Bayou Levee, 95 Arkansas, 345; Peabody v. United States, 231 U. S. 530; Railroad Co. v. Ho-pkins, 90 Illinois, 316; Railroad Co. v. Roskemmer, 264 Illinois,' 103; Railway Co. v. Allen, 41 Arkansas, 431; Railway Co. v. Hunt, 51 Arkansas, 330; Richardson v. Levee Commissioners, 68 Mississippi, 539; Sharp v. United States, 191 U. S. 341; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McKenna,
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the findings as thus made the parties to the action base opposing contentions. The Government asserts that the Government's liability is "limited to the land actually taken and all other damages are consequential. In other words, that the appropriation of the land and the erection of the Leland Dike put the Government in the position of owner of the land with the rights and liabilities of owner, and that besides it had the rights of government to improve navigable waters. There was concession or some concession of the contention by the Court of Claims in its opinion. The court, through Mr. Justice Barney, said:
"In the decision of this case it may be admitted that if the Government had owned the site of the Leland Dike at the time of its erection, or if it had been owned by a stranger to this suit, and hence had made no invasion upon the lands of the plaintiff, it would not have been liable for the destruction thereby inflicted, under the ruling in the Bedford Case." [192 U. S. 217.]
But it was further said: "Under the decisions of the Supreme Court in all cases of this character, it is the invasion upon the lands and the actual and visible possession which constitutes the taking, and when thus taken all of the consequences incident to such invasion necessarily follow, among which is the liability to pay for the, damage thereby occurring to the balance of the tract to which the land thus taken belongs." Citing United States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S. 180.
Claimants concede the power of the Government over the river and that they "do not base their claim upon any raising of the flood levels of the Mississippi River, although it is stated by them and was found as a fact by the lower court that the high-water flood level of the Mississippi River had been raised six feet by the completion of the general levee system."
They "recognize the fact that the right of the United States Government to complete the levee system and maintain the same'is indisputable, and that any purely incidental injury which might have resulted to them solely from raising the flood level would be a damnum absque injuria. They claim nothing by reason of said fact, adducing the same merely by way of inducement as showing that the ruin, which would inevitably have come to their plantation from the deflecting thereon of the flood waters by the construction of Leland Dike, was merely accelerated and expedited but not caused by the raising of the flood level.
"Their claim is that the deposit of sand and gravel and the destruction of their lands thereby were a direct and immediate result of the construction of the dike which was búilt on their plantation, using a part of it for the base thereof and the material thereof, and constructing the same without any condemnation of their lands and ouster of them therefrom, which with the destruction constituted the taking of their lands within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and entitled them to compensation therefor."
And they rely on United. States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S. 180, and other cases, and distinguish the Jackson Case, 230 U. S. 1, and the Hughes Case, 230 U. S.. 24.
A serious proposition of law is hence presented by the contentions and controversy arises, as we have seen, whether an appropriation of the land without condemnation proceedings can have different legal results from its appropriation by such proceedings. In other words, whether compensation for the land appropriated in .either case would be the only measure of relief, and its payment or recovery transfer ownership of the land and the rights of ownership.
But before reaching decision on this proposition questions of fact confront us. It will be observed that the findings are somewhat involved, mixing statement with inference, indeed, it may be said, even with prophecy. And it may be said again (we say "may be said" to avoid the expression of a definite judgment at this time) that there are effects caused by the United States and effects caused by the State which are not distinguished. We think there should be more precision. Great problems confronted the National and state governments, great and uncertain natural forces were to be subdued or controlled, great disasters were to be averted; great benefits acquired. There might be liability to the individual; if so, the liability should be clear, the cause of it direct and certain. This.we explained in Jackson v. United States, 230 U. S. 1, and in Hughes v. United States, Id., 24. There is an effort in the present case to satisfy these conditions, but we do not think it goes far enough.
The finding which recites the effects upon claimants' property is as follows: "In addition to the danger which threatened the levee [that is, by the concentration of the current and during seasons of high water], said current, impinging upon the banks of the stream and the neck bf land adjoining Point Chicot to the mainland, cutting into it, threatened to and would have, if permitted to continue, cut through said neck of land, thus straightening the channel and making Point Chicot plantation an island." In other words, it is found that but for the dike the river would have cut through the neck of land. Or, to express it another way, the dike kept the river in its channel. But, as We have seen, many forces were at work, and if the conditions at claimants' plantation were arti-ficiar they were the result of the lawful exercise of power over navigable rivers.
The finding seems to be definite, but it is .too broad in its inference. It may indeed be a just inference, but the elements'are wanting upon which a judgment can be with assurap.ee pronounced. Besides' there were two agencies at work,- National and state, in the construction of the levees. There is no distribution of liability; all.the results to claimants' , plantation are assigned to the Government. Yet it is found that the claimants at one time conceived that the local authorities were the offenders, that is, the Board of Levee Inspectors of Arkansas was alone responsible, and brought an action against the Board. In passing upon the ground of action and its sufficiency challenged by demurrer the court said that the action "was instituted to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by him [Archer] by reason of the trespass of the defendant [the Board of Levee Inspectors], who unlawfully, with force and arms, entered upon his premises — a plantation in the county of Chicot — and built a levee thereon, without having made compensation therefor." The demurrer was. overruled, the court expressing the view that the action could be maintained and intimated an opinion that an injunction might have been granted to enjoin the trespass but that Archer could elect an action for damages.
The action was discontinued. We are not informed by the findings for what reason. It may have been for good reason; we make no intimation to the' contrary, but its commencement and subsequent discontinuance suggest some questions which may lead to answers pertinent to be considered. In that action the trespass upon claimants' plantation by the construction of the Leland Dike was attributed to the local levee board; in the action at bar it is ascribed exclusively to the officers of the United States and it is averred that the encroachment of the trespass was at different times, and to a greater extent the second than the first time. Did claimants object at either time? And if not, why not? Upon the answer may depend a serious legal question. Or, if they were silent, why were they silent? What were the local conditions which called for judgment, not only the general conditions to Which we have adverted and the findings describe, but the exact conditions as to claimants' property? Did danger threaten it before the erection of the dike as well as threaten the levees? As we have said, great forces were in operation and a judgment or prediction of their effect might have been difficult and uncertain, and claimants have regarded the dike as a protection to their plantation as well as to the levees.
The flow of the river is towards the Gulf and necessarily the water is always higher on the upper side of the reaches or bends such as exist at claimants' plantation. It may be inferred, therefore, that the pressuré of the water, compounded of its velocity and volume, is greatest at the recesses or apices of the bends, has its first effect there, but necessarily extends along the whole concave shore. At first, of course, there would be a break at the neck or narrowest part, but would it not successively extend until the whole mass would crumble and a wide breach be formed through which the river would pour with its full eroding force? And that such might be the effect we gather from the report of the United States engineers, of which we take judicial notice. . It certainly may be questioned, therefore, whether the river breaking through at the neck would have confined itself to a narrow channel, "making Point Chicot plantation an island," and would not have permanently submerged it or swept it away. The Leland Dike prevented a demonstration of experience but it would seem that examples elsewhere on the river could give testimony of what would have occurred if the dike had not been constructed. It may be they were adduced, it may be expert testimony was heard and all pertinent facts exhibited to the court, and its finding is a true deduction from the testimony and the facts. We think, however, as we have already said, it is too broad in its inference, and that therefore, the case should be remanded to the court for more particular findings on the testimony in the case or, in the discretion of the court, upon further testimony to be taken; and the case should be given such dispatch as may be consistent with such purposes.
In wha,t we have said no opinion is intended to be expressed of the case as it is presented or may be presented, and all questions of law are reserved.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.