Court Opinion

ID: 9427731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:43.153073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:09.330308
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
Since the canals involved in this case are entirely artificial in their construction, applicability of the federal navigational servitude is a somewhat closer question than in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, ante, p. 164. Nevertheless, for the reasons given in my dissenting opinion in that case, ante, p. 180, I would reverse the judgment of the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
There is no question that the canals are navigable in fact, or that they give access to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a waterway used for interstate navigation and subject to plenary federal control. The canals are currently used for commercial navigation. They are, thus, “navigable waters of the United States.”
If the United States had condemned respondent’s fast land in order to construct the canals, I would agree that compensation would be required, although the valuation of the land could not include its potential use as a canal. Cf. United States v. Rands, 389 U. S. 121 (1967). But the Government did not initiate the construction. Rather, respondent’s predecessors in interest voluntarily undertook to transform land into navigable water for purposes of obtaining access to a highway of waterborne commerce. In doing so, they subjected their former fast land to the dominant federal interest in navigation and surrendered the right to control access to the canals.
As in Kaiser Aetna, I would hold that the public interest in free navigation predominates, and that, if restrictions on access are warranted, they should be accomplished through the *211auspices of the Army Corps of Engineers. While I agree with the Court that it would be inappropriate on this record to decide the first question presented for review, my answer to the second question obviates the necessity of reaching the first. I thus perceive no need to remand the case for further proceedings.