Footnotes

See Section 4.7; cf. Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 511, 517-19 (2012).

United States v. Causby , 328 U.S. 256, 268 (1946); see City of Tacoma , 330 F.2d at 155-56.

See United States v. Grizzard , 219 U.S. 180, 184 (1911) (“‘just compensation’ . . . obviously requires that the recompense to the owner for the loss caused to him by the taking of a part of a parcel, or single tract of land, shall be measured by the loss resulting to him from the appropriation”); Bos. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Boston , 217 U.S. 189, 195 (1910) (“What has the owner lost? not, What has the taker

See, e.g. , Ga.-Pac. Corp. v. United States , 640 F.2d 328, 336-37 (1980) (per curiam).

See Section 4.11.1.

Piza-Blondet , 585 F.3d at 9 (refusing alternative valuation method when there was “no persuasive reason why the before and after method would be unfair in assessing the value”); Ga.-Pac. Corp. v. United States , 226 Ct. Cl. 95, 107, 640 F.2d 328, 336-37 (1980) (per curiam); United States v. 12.94 Acres of Land in Solano Cty. , No. CIV. S-07-2172, 2009 WL 4828749, at *5-*6, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114581, at *15-*17 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009) (error to analyze value of the part taken separately from the total).

United States v. Va. Elec. & Power Co. , 365 U.S. 624, 626 n.2, 632 (1961); Dugan v. Rank , 372 U.S. 609, 626 (1963).

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an easement as “[a]n interest in land owned by another person, consisting in the right to use or control the land, or an area above or below it, for a specific limited purpose ” Easement, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

Compare United States v. 3,218.9 Acres of Land in Warren Cty. , 619 F.2d 288, 289-91 (3d Cir. 1980) (noting “explicit” description of “the nature of the estate to be taken” and “clear” language that “third party mineral rights are not intended to be affected”), with United States v. City of Tacoma , 330 F.2d 153, 155-56 (9th Cir. 1964) (reversing judgment of compensation that did not resolve “the nature of the easement taken,” as leaving “this critical issue undecided” was detrimental to both the United States and the landowner).

Easements that affect or relate to riparian uses—such as flowage, levee or irrigation easements—may raise special valuation issues due to the United States’ dominant navigational servitude. See Section 4.11.1; cf. Weatherford v. United States, 606 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1979).