Footnotes

1082 E.g., Va. Elec., 365 U.S. at 629; Twin City Power, 350 U.S. at 228; United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 511 (1945); see Appalachian Elec., 311 U.S. at 424 (describing federal “dominion over flowage and its product, energy”).1083 United States v. Commodore Park, Inc., 324 U.S. 386, 390-91 (1945); Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141, 152-53 (1900); Gibson v. United States, 166

1074 Gerlach Live Stock, 339 U.S. at 739; Lambert Gravel Co. v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 835 F.2d 1105, 1110 (5th Cir. 1988); cf. Turner v. Kings River Conservation Dist., 360 F.2d 184, 192-93 (9th Cir. 1966) (analyzing Flood Control Act of 1944 § 8, codified at 33 U.S.C. § 701-1(b) (1996).1075 United States v. Cherokee Nation, 480 U.S. 700, 707 (1987) (quoting Bowen v. Pub. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 52 (1986));

1077 United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121, 124-25 (1967); accord United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 427 (1940) (“[T]here is no private property in the flow of the stream. This has no assessable value to the riparian owner.”).1078 Rands, 389 U.S. at 126; see also United States v. 30.54 Acres of Land in Greene Cty. (Filiaggi), 90 F.3d 790, 795 (3d Cir. 1996).

1079 Rands, 389 U.S. at 126 (“[T]hese rights and values are not assertable against the superior rights of the United States, are not property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and need not be paid for when appropriated by the United States.”); see Twin City Power, 350 U.S. at 227 (“it is the water power that creates the special value, whether the lands are above or below ordinary high water”).1080 Va. Elec., 365 U.S. at 631; accord Twin City Power, 350 U.S. at 225-26 (“It is no answer to say that payment is sought only for the location value of the fast lands. That special location value is due to the flow of the stream ”).

1080 Va. Elec., 365 U.S. at 631; accord Twin City Power, 350 U.S. at 225-26 (“It is no answer to say that payment is sought only for the location value of the fast lands. That special location value is due to the flow of the stream ”).1081 Rands, 389 U.S. at 126; see also Filiaggi, 90 F.3d at 796; United States v. 87.30 Acres of Land, 430 F.2d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 1970).

1072 Commodore Park, 324 U.S. at 392-93; see, e.g., Weatherford v. United States, 606 F.2d 851, 853 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding navigational servitude applied to acquisition for purpose of relocating highway that would be submerged by construction of dam in navigable stream).1073 Commodore Park, 324 U.S. at 393.

1081 Rands, 389 U.S. at 126; see also Filiaggi, 90 F.3d at 796; United States v. 87.30 Acres of Land, 430 F.2d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 1970).1082 E.g., Va. Elec., 365 U.S. at 629; Twin City Power, 350 U.S. at 228; United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 511 (1945); see Appalachian Elec., 311 U.S. at 424 (describing federal “dominion over flowage and its product, energy”).

1067 Rands, 389 U.S. at 123; Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs, 229 U.S. 82, 88 (1913); Alameda Gateway, 45 Fed. Cl. at 763.1068 Va. Elec., 365 U.S. at 629; accord Rands, 389 U.S. at 123-24; United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222, 225 (1956); see also Kaiser Aetna v.

1070 Twin City Power, 350 U.S. at 224.1071 Valdez, 666 F.2d at 1239 (citing Chi., M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 312 U.S. at 597); cf. United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950) (finding Congress had not intended to exercise navigation servitude in acquisitions for specific dam project).

1073 Commodore Park, 324 U.S. at 393.Constitution requires. 1074 But “[s]uch a waiver of sovereign authority will not be implied [I]t