00200863

Component

https://onlinepubs.trb.or...s/trcircular/93/93-002.pdf

THE CASE PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIVERSE FORMS WHICH RIPARIAN RIGHTS CAN TAKE AND THE BOUNDS TO WHICH THEY CAN BE EXTENDED. CLAIMANTS PURCHASED TUSCARORA BAY PROPERTY, INSTITUTED DREDGING AND THE FILL OBTAINED WAS USED TO RECLAIM UNDERWATER LAND WHICH WAS THEN USED TO CONSTRUCT A MARINA. THE U. S. GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMED FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER THAT PART OF THE BAY BUT AFTER CONSTRUCTION, THE STATE OF NEW YORK SERVED AN APPROPRIATION MAP ON THE CLAIMANTS TAKING ALL OF THEIR WATERFRONT PROPERTY INCLUDING THE RECLAIMED AREA WITH BOATHOUSE AND MARINA. THE COURT-OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANTS HAD ACQUIRED THE RIGHTS TO THE UNDERLAND INSPITE OF THEIR FAILURE TO OBTAIN STATE PERMISSION. SUPPORTING THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE THAT THE OWNER OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS MAY USE ADJACENT UNDERWATER LAND WHERE IT AIDS NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE. THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT THE OPERATION HAD U.S. GOVERNMENT APPROVAL AND THE STATE'S SILENCE DURING THE CONDUCTION OF THE OPERATION, COULD BE INTERPRETED AS ACQUIESCENCE. COURT FINDINGS ARE UNCLEAR AS TO THE EXACT NATURE OF THE CLAIMANTS' INTEREST FOR COMPENSATION PURPOSES. IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT CLAIMANTS ARE COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS AS WELL AS THE COST OF ENHANCING THAT RIGHT. THE CASE CANNOT BE READILY CLASSIFIED AS CONDEMNATION, SINCE IT INVOLVES RIGHTS ACQUIRED THROUGH PRIVATE TAKING.

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Memo 199

p. 3-4

1969-2

Highway Research Circular

Digital/other

Appropriations; Dredging; Federal government; Land reclamation; Marinas; Navigation; States; Trade; Underwater construction; Underwater structures; Water rights

United States

United States

Bridges and other structures; Economics; Highways; Law; Marine Transportation; Society

TRIS, TRB

Jul 24 1973 12:00AM

• ALABAMA SUPREME COURT RULES THAT CONDEMNEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES WHERE THE CONDEMNING AUTHORITY HAS DISMISSED THE PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION
• THE FACT THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE USED COLLATERALLY IN CONNECTION WITH COMPARABLE VALUATIONS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HEARSAY IS ACCEPTABLE DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE OF VOLUNTARINESS OF ONE OF THE COMPARABLE SALES
• WHERE THERE IS A WIDE VARIANCE IN VALUATIONS AND GREAT DIFFERENCE IN EXPERT OPINION, A COMMISSIONER'S REPORT MUST CONTAIN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO PERMIT INTELLIGENT JUDICIAL REVIEW