In the United States v. Rands et ux., 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that when determining just compensation for private property taken by the government under its power of eminent domain, any increase in value due to navigational servitude should not be considered. The case involved a couple who owned land along Columbia River which was taken by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction of John Day Lock and Dam project. While assessing compensation, they argued that their land had special value because it could have been used as an industrial site with access to river navigation but this claim was rejected by court stating that such potential use falls within federal government's navigational servitude (right). This ruling clarified how valuation should be done during eminent domain proceedings involving lands adjacent to public waterways.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rands et ux., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to limit compensation for landowners whose property is taken by the government under eminent domain, if it includes water rights, was unjust and inconsistent with previous case law. He contended that this ruling effectively devalued water rights without any constitutional or legal basis. According to him, just because a right of way is granted over public lands does not mean that all benefits accruing from such grant are free from payment when they are taken by eminent domain. He further stated that while navigation servitude may be paramount in terms of use priority, it should not affect monetary compensation due to landowners when their properties are seized by the state. The justice emphasized on fair treatment and equitable remuneration as fundamental principles underlying private property rights protection against governmental takings.