Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Willow River Power Co.

Supreme Court of the United States
324 U.S. 499, 65 S. Ct. 761, 1945 U.S. LEXIS 2623 (1945)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A riparian owner's interest in the water level of a navigable stream for power generation is not a legally protected property right against the federal government's dominant navigation servitude. Therefore, the impairment of a hydroelectric plant's efficiency caused by the government raising the water level of a navigable stream to aid navigation does not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.


Facts:

  • Willow River Power Company (WRPC) owned and operated a hydroelectric plant on its land in Wisconsin.
  • The plant was situated on the non-navigable Willow River, which flowed into the navigable St. Croix River.
  • The plant generated power using the 'head,' which is the vertical distance the water falls from its dam on the Willow River to the level of the St. Croix River where the water discharges.
  • The United States government constructed the Red Wing Dam downstream as part of a congressional plan to improve navigation on the Mississippi River.
  • The government's dam created a pool that extended upstream, raising the ordinary water level of the navigable St. Croix River at WRPC's property by approximately three feet.
  • This rise in the St. Croix's level reduced the plant's operating head, which diminished its capacity to produce electricity and caused WRPC economic loss.
  • No fast lands owned by WRPC were flooded or physically invaded by the government's action.

Procedural Posture:

  • Willow River Power Company sued the United States in the Court of Claims, seeking just compensation for the impaired efficiency of its hydroelectric plant.
  • The Court of Claims found that the government's action constituted a 'taking' of the company's property.
  • The Court of Claims awarded Willow River Power Company $25,000 in damages.
  • The United States petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

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 federal government's action of raising the water level of a navigable stream to aid navigation, which impairs the power-generating capacity of a riparian owner's hydroelectric plant, constitute a compensable 'taking' of private property under the Fifth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson

No, the government's action does not constitute a compensable taking. A riparian owner's economic interest in the natural level of a navigable stream is subordinate to the dominant public interest in navigation. The federal government possesses a 'navigation servitude,' which is a superior right to improve navigable waters without being liable for consequential damages to private interests. The Court distinguished this case from United States v. Cress, which involved the government backing up water into a non-navigable tributary where the navigation servitude does not apply. Here, the government acted upon a navigable stream, the St. Croix River, where its power is paramount. WRPC's interest in the river's level was a permissible convenience, not a vested property right protected by the Fifth Amendment against the government's navigation power. Therefore, the economic loss suffered is damnum absque injuria—damage without a legally cognizable injury.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice Roberts

Yes, the government's action constitutes a compensable taking. This case is factually and legally indistinguishable from United States v. Cress. WRPC's right to operate its dam on the non-navigable Willow River and to have the water flow away at its natural level is a property right recognized under Wisconsin state law. The government raised the level of the St. Croix River above its ordinary high-water mark, which is the boundary of its navigation servitude. This action directly backed up water and interfered with WRPC's state-recognized property rights on the non-navigable tributary, causing a diminution of its dam's power head. The fact that WRPC's dam was physically close to the navigable river is irrelevant; the government's action invaded a private property right on a non-navigable stream, which, under the precedent of Cress, requires just compensation.



Analysis:

This decision significantly broadens the scope of the federal government's navigation servitude, establishing that it immunizes the government from liability for economic damages caused to riparian owners on navigable streams. It creates a clear jurisprudential line: government interference with non-navigable waters may be a taking (per Cress), but similar interference on navigable waters is not. By defining the riparian owner's interest in a navigable river's flow as a non-compensable 'privilege' rather than a 'right' relative to the government, the case limits the reach of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause for businesses dependent on the natural state of such waterways.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Willow River Power Co. (1945) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States v. Willow River Power Co.