
    THE UNITED STATES v. A. H. HEYWARD AND FANNIE H. CHAMPION, ADMINISTRATORS OF ANDREW H. HEYWARD, DECEASED.
    [46 C. Cls., 484 ; 52 C. Cls., 87;
    250 U. S., —.]
    In the culture of rice the land must be overflowed, but the water must also be withdrawn. The land must therefore be above low-water mark so that with the aid of dikes or levees the water can be admitted, retained, and excluded. In the improvement of navigation of tlie Savannah River the Government so raised the river by dams and obstructions that the water can not be withdrawn from adjacent rice plantations, thereby permanently flooding the same, and the lands become unfit for the cultivation of rice, and therefore valueless.
    The court below decided:
    To destroy the agricultural value of land by the erection of publie works in the bed of a river is to take private property for public use, and it is a taking within the meaning of the Constitution, although the river is navigable and the dams and obstructions placed in its bed are for the purpose of improving navigation.
    A court without positive proof can not find the fact on an assumption of engineering skill that by the digging of canals land may be reclaimed for rice culture, or any other profitable purpose, and there is no authority of law requiring the owner of submerged lands to embark in uncertain undertakings for the reclamation thereof.
    
      United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S., 445, governs.
   Per curiam:

Judgment affirmed by an equally divided court, May 19, 1919.  