## Facts

- Willow River Power Co. owned and operated a hydroelectric plant on the Willow River system near its connection to the navigable St. Croix River, which joins the navigable Mississippi River.
- The plant’s generating capacity depended on the “head” created by the elevation difference between water above the company’s dam on the nonnavigable Willow River and the tailrace discharge level in the navigable St. Croix River.
- The United States constructed the Red Wing Dam on the Mississippi River as a navigation improvement.
- The federal project raised water levels in the Mississippi and, by backwater effects, raised the St. Croix River level at the point where the plant’s tailrace entered the St. Croix.
- The increased tailwater reduced the plant’s available head by about three feet, decreasing turbine output and causing the company to buy replacement power.
- The Court of Claims awarded $25,000, reasoning that raising the navigable river above its ordinary high-water mark impaired a compensable interest.
- The United States sought review, and the Supreme Court reversed the compensation award.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal navigation improvement that raises the level of a navigable river and reduces a downstream tailwater “head” for a hydroelectric plant effects a taking of private property requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether an asserted interest in maintaining a favorable head of water against changes in a navigable stream is a legally recognized property right enforceable against the United States.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Claims.
- No taking occurred where the government, acting pursuant to its navigation power, raised the level of a navigable river and thereby diminished the plant’s generating capacity.
- The company’s loss was an economic disadvantage not tied to a property right recognized by law as against the United States.
- The Court distinguished prior cases involving physical invasion (such as flooding) of private land from cases involving only reduced profitability or efficiency.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment does not create property rights; it requires compensation only when the government takes interests that the law recognizes as property rights.
- Not all economic interests or advantages qualify as property; only legally protected interests are compensable.
- Riparian and water-power uses dependent on the level of navigable waters are held subject to the federal navigation servitude; interference from navigation improvements is generally noncompensable absent invasion of a recognized property interest.
- A diminished “head of water” caused by raising navigable waters, without physical invasion of the claimant’s property, is not a compensable taking when the claimant lacks a legally enforceable right to an unimpaired tailwater level.

## Conclusion

The Court held that reduced hydroelectric output caused by a federal navigation dam’s backwater effects was not a Fifth Amendment taking because the asserted right to a fixed head of water against changes in a navigable river was not a legally recognized property interest enforceable against the United States.


United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945)