Under present Federal policyj Federal contribution toward construction 

 of works for the protection of privately owned shores is not authorized o 

 Should this be changed? Of course ^ adoption by Congress of a policy pro- 

 viding for increased Federal participation may be a future development, 

 tut its consideration at this time is of purely academic interest because 

 the present policy concerning the maximum degree of Federal participation 

 is clearly specified » 



We do have a few cases which may be considered to justify a departure 

 from policy stated in Public Law 727o These cases are ones that are now 

 being studied and concerning which no decision has been reached o They are 

 cases where the Federal Government has either oonstruc"tedj, or taken over 

 after construction, structures which may have caused an adverse effect on • 

 the adjacent shore lineo One such case is that of Port Kuenerae, Califomiaj 

 where the construction of two jetties by local interests has caused erosion 

 downcoast from the jetties., The jetties and the entire harbor were taken 

 over by the Department of the Navy early in the waro The erosion has con- 

 tinuedo Near Cape May, New Jersey, the Federal Government built twin 

 jetties at Gold Spring Inlet which have apparently increased the extent 

 of erosion downcoast » 



It is well established that the Federal Government does not have any 

 legal responsibility for consequential damages in such cases o The fre- 

 quently quoted legal opinion on this point is interesting (extract from 

 the opinion of the Court of Claims in the case of Southern Pacific COo V<. 

 United States, 58 Cto ClSo 428 )s 



•'It is true that the loss of property did not occur 

 until the jetty had been built by the Government 5 that the 

 building of the jetty caused the loss is matter of opinionj 

 but assuming that there was some connection between the work 

 of the Government and the flow of the ocean currents and the 

 consequent loss or damage of the plaintiff's property, it 

 does not follow that the Government is under obligation to 

 pay therefor as for the taking of the property o Horstanann 

 Coo Vo United States , 257 UoSo 138, U5<. If the plaintiff 

 can recover in thj.s court for a taking under the fifth 

 amendment to the Constitution it must be upon an implied con- 

 tracto *When in the exercise of its governmental rights the 

 Government take property, the ownership of which it concedes 

 to be in an individual, it impliedly promises to pay therefor »» 

 Bat in this case the facts found preclude the implication 

 of a promise to pay^ The property was admittedly not taken 

 for public use I there was no intention to take it, the damage 

 done, if any, was consequential! what was done was done in 

 the exercise of a right, and the consequences are incidental, 

 and no liability is incurred o" 



