Kaiser Aetna v. United States
444 U.S. 164 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Although the federal government may regulate a privately owned body of water made navigable through private efforts under its Commerce Clause authority, the imposition of a public right of access constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment that requires just compensation.
Facts:
- Kuapa Pond was a 523-acre shallow lagoon on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, which was considered private property under Hawaiian law.
- The pond was separated from the navigable Maunalua Bay and the Pacific Ocean by a natural barrier beach.
- In 1961, the owner, Bishop Estate, leased the pond to Kaiser Aetna for the development of a private marina community.
- Kaiser Aetna invested millions of dollars dredging the pond, increasing its depth from two to six feet.
- With the acquiescence of the Army Corps of Engineers, Kaiser Aetna dredged an eight-foot-deep channel connecting the pond to Maunalua Bay, allowing boat access to the ocean.
- Kaiser Aetna created a private marina community, controlled access to the waterway, and charged fees to residents for its use and maintenance.
- Prior to these improvements, Kuapa Pond was incapable of being used as a continuous highway for navigation in interstate commerce.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued petitioners Kaiser Aetna and Bishop Estate in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.
- The District Court held that the marina was subject to federal regulatory power but that the government could not require public access without paying just compensation.
- The United States appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's holding on regulatory authority but reversed on the issue of public access, finding that the federal navigational servitude required petitioners to allow public access.
- Kaiser Aetna and Bishop Estate, the petitioners, petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's imposition of a public right of access to a privately-owned pond, which was made navigable through private investment, constitute a taking of private property for which compensation is required under the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Yes. Imposing a public navigational servitude on a privately developed marina constitutes a taking of property requiring just compensation. The Court reasoned that the concept of 'navigable waters' is not fixed and must be evaluated based on the purpose for which it is invoked. While Congress's power to regulate commerce is broad and extends to the improved marina, this regulatory power does not automatically create a dominant public servitude that extinguishes private property rights. Kuapa Pond was historically considered private property, or 'fast land,' not a great navigable stream in its natural state. Kaiser Aetna's substantial investment-backed expectations, coupled with the government's initial acquiescence, created a property interest. The 'right to exclude' is a fundamental element of property, and compelling public access constitutes an actual physical invasion, which is a taking that requires compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. Imposing a public right of access on the marina does not constitute a taking requiring compensation. The dissent argued that Kuapa Pond was 'navigable water of the United States' even before its development because it was subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, a long-established test for navigability. The federal navigational servitude should be coextensive with all navigable waters, regardless of whether they were naturally navigable or made so by private effort. When Kaiser Aetna connected its private pond to a public waterway, it surrendered its right to exclude the public and subjected the property to the paramount public right of navigation. The value created by the development derives from access to public waters, and therefore, the public's right to that access should not be conditioned on compensation.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of the federal navigational servitude, establishing that it is not a 'blanket exception' to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision reinforces the importance of the 'right to exclude' as a core property right and protects the investment-backed expectations of private developers. By distinguishing Congress's broad power to regulate from the government's ability to physically appropriate property for public use, the ruling requires the government to pay just compensation when it transforms a private waterway into a public one. This precedent has a continuing impact on property law, environmental regulation, and takings jurisprudence, particularly in cases where private development alters land to connect it with public resources.
Unlock the full brief for Kaiser Aetna v. United States