## Facts

- R. B. Rands and his wife owned riparian land along the Columbia River in Oregon.
- They leased the land to the State of Oregon with an option to purchase, anticipating industrial development including port use.
- Before the option was exercised, the United States condemned the land for the John Day Lock and Dam Project, a federally authorized Columbia River development plan.
- By statute, the United States later conveyed the condemned land to Oregon for a price substantially below the option price respondents expected.
- In the condemnation case, the district court valued the property based on sand, gravel, and agricultural uses and excluded any added “port site” value tied to the river.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, treating access to navigable waters and resulting port-site value as compensable.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment requires the United States, when condemning riparian land, to include in just compensation the land’s special “port-site” value attributable to access to navigable waters.
2. Whether a riparian owner’s access to navigable waters is a compensable interest when impaired or taken in connection with a federal navigation project.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that just compensation does not include port-site value to the extent it derives from proximity to and access to navigable waters subject to the federal navigational servitude.
- The district court properly excluded port-site value and limited compensation to non-navigation-based value.

## Legal Principles

- Riparian interests, including access to navigable waters, are held subject to the United States’ dominant power to control navigation under the Commerce Clause.
- The federal navigational servitude extends to navigable waters and the streambed up to the ordinary high-water mark, and the proper exercise of that power is noncompensable under the Fifth Amendment.
- In valuing condemned riparian land for a federal navigation project, the government need not pay for increments of value derived from the land’s use with, or proximity to, a navigable stream (including port-site potential).
- The Submerged Lands Act confirms state title to submerged lands but expressly preserves the United States’ dominant navigational servitude; it does not convert navigation-based advantages into compensable property interests against the United States.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that when the United States condemns riparian land in connection with a navigation project, the Constitution does not require compensation for port-site value or other value attributable to access to navigable waters because such interests are subordinate to the federal navigational servitude.


United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967)