Court Opinion

ID: 9444989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:17:40.749083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:11.514301
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting),
I respectfully dissent. As to Specification of Error No. 1, the easement to overflow or flood the lands is limited by the judgment as follows: “with the waters impounded by Wallace Lake Dam *49constructed by the United States of America.” Wallace Lake Dam had been completed before the judgment was entered. Its spillway had a height of 158 feet; the overall height of the dam was 165 feet; there were four sluices three feet wide by eight feet high at an elevation of 142 feet, designed to be and remain permanently open, without means of being closed and not capable of being closed accidentally by debris or otherwise. Thus the dam would create a permanent pool up to 142 feet only, the water would go over the spillway at 158 feet and over the dam at 165 feet. It seems to me clear enough that the easement is based upon the flooding caused by the particular dam as so constructed and that the landowner would, without more, have the right to additional compensation if any structural changes should ever be made in the dam which would cause additional flooding. So thinking, I cannot join my brothers in agreeing in principle with Specification N-o. 1.
The only lands that would ever be flooded permanently by waters impounded by Wallace Lake Dam are those below the 142 foot contour, and the undisputed evidence shows that little, if any, of these lands are below that contour. The majority finds with the Government as to Specifications 2, 5 and 6, and I agree.
The majority states as a fact that, “The land, because of its proximity to the City of Shreveport, was being held as an investment for subdivision purposes, which was its highest and best use.” That statement seems to me not in accord with the findings of the Commission1 amply supported by the testimony.
The measure of compensation is the difference in values before and after taking. The Commission found the value of the property before the taking and then determined “damages” by depreciating the value of the property after the imposition of the easement. To me that seems a departure in form rather than in substance from the prescribed formula. Cf. 18 Am.Jur., Eminent Domain, § 356.
Subtracting the “damages” from the Commission found value of the property before taking, there is produced an after taking value of the land larger than that fixed by any of the witnesses. However, the difference between the value before taking and such after taking value was within the limits testified to by the witnesses, that is, it was more than such difference according to the testimony of the Government’s witnesses and less than the difference according to the landowner’s witnesses. It was within the province of the Commission, I think, to accept and act on *50all or any part of the testimony of any witness and to draw all reasonable inferences therefrom. I cannot agree that the findings, either on their face, or in fact, are clearly erroneous. To the contrary, I think that they are amply supported by the evidence.
Finally, it seems to me that the time of taking was in August, 1952, at the time of the filing of the declaration of taking and accompanying deposit of estimated compensation. True, the construction of the dam had been authorized in 1938, and it had been completed in 1946, but none of these lands were within the bed of Wallace Lake or were permanently flooded, and there was no evidence that before the declaration of taking any of the lands had in fact been flooded by waters impounded by the dam, though that fact does not seem to me material. The servitude, according to my understanding, was not imposed prior to the declaration of taking. Any reduction in value which may have occurred by reason of the legislation or the beginning or completion of the project prior to the declaration of taking cannot be recovered in thesé proceedings. Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 285, 60 S.Ct. 231, 236, 84 L.Ed. 240.2 *****8 Indeed, that would be true even if any damage had theretofore been caused by actual flooding with the impounded waters. “The property taken was the right to use in the future. The commissioners were not authorized to make any award on account of damages caused by unlawful flooding of shore-lands prior to the taking.” Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 262, 54 S.Ct. 704, 711, 78 L.Ed. 1236.
A reading and study of this record convinces me that the case was carefully tried by a district judge thoroughly familiar with the applicable principles of law and with the aid of a conscientious and thorough Commission, and that the result reached was right and just. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. For example, the Commission considered the property as divided into five tracts, partially described as follows:
“The property which makes up Tracts 1 and 2 consists of two rather distinct types of land.
“Approximately 175 acres are comparatively high and well drained and lie along a ridge running north and south for the length of the tract. * * *
“The remainder of the property in Tracts 1 and 2, being some 225 acres, consists of considerably lower, flat and rather poorly drained lands. This portion of the land is traversed by Brushy Bayou and is subject to frequent overflows from headwater. Unlike the high lands, which appear well suited for subdivision purposes, it is doubtful that the lower property by itself could ever be economically subdivided due to the necessity of expensive and extensive drainage work. * * *
“Tract 3 consists of some thirty-five acres of high land, about forty-five acres of land similar to the lower portions of Tracts 1 and 2 and of some forty acres of extremely low, swampy, poor quality land of very little value. * * * “Tracts 4 and 5 contain approximately one hundred ten acres of high land, about one hundred acres of intermediate land which is suitable for cultivation and pasturage and the remainder is very low, swampy land of the type described under Tract 3. The high land in these tracts, unlike that in Tracts 1 and 2, is not so situated as to be readily suited for subdivision in connection with the remainder of the Slattery property. * c ”

. In that case it was said, “A reduction or increase in the value of property may occur by reason of legislation for or the beginning or completion. of a project. Such changes in value are incidents of . ownership. They cannot be considered as a ‘taking’ in the constitutional sense.”
See the many cases collected in the full and illuminating discussion in 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain, 3rd ed., § 6.38, p. 285 et seq., and § 6.4432(1), p. 339 et seq. See, also, United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 76, 33 S.Ct. 667, 57 L.Ed. 1063; Miller v. United States, 9 Cir., 125 F.2d 75, 80; Murray v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 130 F.2d 442, 444; 23 Tracts of Land v. United States, 6 Cir., 177 F.2d 967, 970.