United States v. Kansas City Life Insurance

Background

A farmer owned land next to Dardenne Creek and the Mississippi River. The United States built a dam as part of a river-and-harbor improvement law and kept the Mississippi River continuously at ordinary high-water level near the farm. That maintenance changed the local drainage so water could not drain from the farm into Dardenne Creek, and the agricultural value of the land above the river’s ordinary high-water mark was destroyed. The Court of Claims awarded the farmer compensation, and the Supreme Court reviewed that award.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether government actions that keep a navigable river artificially high and harm nearby land require compensation. The Court said yes: the ordinary high-water mark is the limit of the riverbed, and the federal navigation power does not reach land beyond that mark. The loss of farming value caused by the maintained water level was a taking under the Fifth Amendment even though the land was not actually overflowed. The Supreme Court, through Justice Burton’s opinion, affirmed the Court of Claims’ judgment and its description of the interest taken.

Real world impact

This ruling means landowners next to navigable rivers can seek compensation when federal river projects destroy the productive use of their land, even without visible flooding. Federal river improvements must be planned with the possibility of paying for harm to adjacent farmland. The decision enforces limits on federal navigation power by recognizing the ordinary high-water mark as the boundary of the riverbed.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas wrote a dissent joined by Justices Black, Reed, and Minton; Justice Minton also filed a separate dissenting opinion. These opinions disagreed with the majority’s legal conclusions, indicating the Justices were divided.