United States v. Willow River Power Co.

Background

The dispute was between a hydroelectric company that owned a riverside power plant and the United States. The Government built the Red Wing navigation dam downstream, which raised the St. Croix River pool about three feet. That higher tailwater reduced the plant’s usable water head and its power output. A claims court awarded $25,000 for the lost power; the company did not claim flooding of its dry land or structural damage, only lost generation capacity.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the loss of power was a constitutional “taking” that requires payment. It held that because the St. Croix is a navigable river, the public interest in navigation is dominant and the company’s advantage in the water level is not a protected property right against the Government’s navigation improvements. The Court distinguished an earlier case (Cress) involving a non-navigable stream and concluded that damages from raising a navigable river’s level are not compensable under the Fifth Amendment; compensation, if any, must come from Congress.

Real world impact

The decision means riparian owners and riverside power operators who lose efficiency when the Government raises navigable waters for navigation normally cannot get constitutional compensation. Affected owners must look to legislation for relief rather than the courts. The ruling confines the Cress rule to non-navigable-stream situations and reverses the $25,000 award.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice concurred only in the result, while another dissented and would have affirmed the award based on state property law and the Cress precedent; the Chief Justice joined that dissent.