Court Opinion

ID: 9472796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:11:09.489248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:09.187751
License: Public Domain

ERVIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority’s conclusion hinges on the assumption that the grant of the original easement created “exactly the same situation or condition” that would have existed if the waterway in Horry County had been natural and not man-made. If one accepts this premise, then it is clear that the section of the waterway that crossed Mrs. Ballam’s land was subject to the dominant navigational servitude of the United States *920and any erosion that occurred beyond the boundaries of the easement was noncompensable.
I remain unconvinced that this premise is valid. The deed expressly limited the easement in the initial grant to a strip of land 320 feet wide and 1700 feet long. Within these precise boundaries, Mrs. Ballam’s predecessor authorized the United States, through the State of South Carolina, to construct a canal linking two stretches of natural waterway. The easement granted no more and no less than the exact piece of land described in the deed. The document states only that the grantor
does grant, bargain, sell and release unto the said State of South Carolina, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right and easement to enter upon, excavate, cut away, and remove any and all of the hereinbefore described tract numbered 37-A as may be required at any time for construction and maintenance of the said inland waterway, or any enlargement thereof, and to maintain the portion so excavated and the channel thereby created as a part of the navigable waters of the United States; and the further perpetual right and easement to enter upon, occupy and use any portion of said tract numbered 37 not so cut away and converted into public navigable water as aforesaid, for the deposit of dredged material and for such other purposes as may be needful in the construction, maintenance, and improvement of the said inland waterway; reserving, however, to the grantor, his, her, its heirs, successors and assigns, all such rights and privileges in said tract of land as may be used and enjoyed without interfering with or abridging the rights and easements hereby conveyed.
J.A. at 14. Had Mrs. Ballam’s predecessors wished to grant the government land for the waterway and such additional land as would be needed or consumed during construction and use of the canal, that understanding could easily have been included in the deed.
In my view the majority has read far more into the words “created as a part of the navigable waters of the United States” than is warranted by a careful reading of the grant limited to the four corners of the document. The grant makes clear that the government will not only construct but maintain the waterway: “the said grantor does grant [the stated tract] as may be required for construction and maintenance of the said inland waterway.” J.A. at 14 (emphasis added). It is unclear to me why a servitude protecting the government from liability for its failure to maintain the sides of the canal and protect against erosion should now be read into the deed.
A taking by the government is permissible provided there is reasonable compensation to the owner. See United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946); Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922). An initial lawful taking, however, cannot be expanded without additional compensation. See United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 365 U.S. 624, 81 S.Ct. 784, 5 L.Ed.2d 838 (1961). Were the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway a highway, the use of which had caused the destruction of adjoining land, there is no question that the government would be required to compensate for the adjoining land as well as the land on which the highway sat. The same principles apply here. I see no just reason why Mrs. Ballam should suffer potentially the loss of her entire property without compensation simply because the government failed to construct a waterway in a manner that ensured the terms of the easement grant would not be violated.
The majority, of course, goes on to argue that “wave wash,” and not the government, was responsible for the erosion. Thus, even if a navigational servitude did not exist, in their view there was insufficient causation to establish a compensable taking under the fifth amendment. The problem with this argument, however, is that it ignores the obvious; but for the government the waterway would not have crossed Mrs. Ballam’s land. I am hard-*921pressed to determine who or what, other than the government, is responsible for the damage. To draw a distinction between “wave wash” and the government amounts to a distinction without real meaning.
Because the initial easement makes no provision for the use of land beyond the specific boundaries set out in the deed, and because the government’s actions resulted in the taking of fast1 land beyond those boundaries, I would affirm the decision of the district court.

. Fast land is defined as: Mainland; esp: land that is high and dry near water: upland. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 827 (1976). There was no inland waterway across Mrs. Ballam’s land prior to the execution of the easement and the construction carried out by the government. The majority proceeds on the assumption that the execution of an easement and the subsequent building of a portion of the inland waterway across fast land where there was no natural waterway originally vests in the United States a right of dominant navigational servitude identical to that existing where there was a natural navigable waterway in the beginning. I do not believe that either the law or the easement in question produces such a result nor did the signature parties to the easement so intend.