1114 E.g., United States v. Fort Smith River Dev. Corp., 349 F.2d 522, 525-26 (8th Cir. 1965) (reversing award that failed to consider special benefits due to United States’ revetment project that “manifestly” protected remainder land “from further reliction or erosion. That fact alone apparently places [the remainder] in a ‘better position’ because of the taking” and must be considered).1115 H.R. r ep. n o. 91-1665, at 31 (1970) (noting § 595a does not change federal law on offsetting special benefit to remainder “against the just compensation that would otherwise be paid for the real property taken and for damages to remaining real property”);United States v.