In the United States v. Cress case of 1916, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and navigable waters. The defendant, Cress, owned land along and beneath Kentucky's Cumberland River which was non-navigable until the U.S government constructed locks and dams that made it navigable year-round. This caused flooding to part of Cress' land for which he sought compensation under Fifth Amendment protections against seizure of private property without just compensation (the "takings clause"). The court held that when private property is permanently invaded by water due to public improvements aimed at navigation enhancement, this constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment requiring payment of full compensation regardless if parts remain untouched or value increases in other sections because of these improvements. It clarified that any physical invasion authorized by government is as much entitled to protection as an actual appropriation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Cress, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could potentially lead to an overreach of federal power. He contended that while it is true that navigable waters are under federal jurisdiction, this does not mean the government has unlimited authority over all activities affecting those waters. In his view, if a private individual’s actions indirectly affect navigation by altering water levels or flow rates but do not obstruct navigation directly or pose any immediate threat to public safety, these actions should be considered within their rights as property owners rather than being subject to federal regulation. Furthermore, he warned against setting a precedent where any minor interference with navigability could justify government intervention in private affairs.