In the United States v. Dickinson case of 1908, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and flooding caused by government action. The plaintiff, Dickinson, owned a farm that was flooded when the U.S. Government constructed locks and dams upstream to make rivers more navigable for commercial shipping traffic. This resulted in significant damage to Dickinson's property which he claimed constituted an illegal seizure under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The lower courts initially dismissed his claim stating that it was not intentional or direct enough to constitute a taking because it wasn't permanent nor did it completely deprive him of all use of his property. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision arguing that any substantial interference with private property rights attributable directly and proximately to government actions constitutes a taking regardless if its temporary or does not completely deprive one from using their own property. Thus, they held that even though there might be some residual value left in Dickinson's land after being partially submerged underwater due to federal dam construction activities upstream; such severe disruption still amounted as compensable under eminent domain laws since these were clearly foreseeable consequences resulting from authorized public works project undertaken by US authorities themselves.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Dickinson, it was argued that the majority's decision to award damages to Dickinson for his flooded land was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that because the flooding of Dickinson’s land by a government-built dam was not permanent or inevitable but rather intermittent and irregular, it should not be considered a 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment requiring compensation. They contended that such incidental damage is part of what every citizen must endure for public benefits and does not constitute an appropriation of property necessitating payment from the government. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications this ruling could have on future cases involving similar circumstances where property is indirectly affected by governmental actions.