In the United States v. Sponenbarger et al., 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving landowners in Louisiana who claimed that their property was damaged by flooding as a result of changes made to the Mississippi River by the federal government for navigation purposes. The landowners argued that this constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. However, the court held that while it is true that if a single private property is directly and specifically affected by governmental action, it could be considered as 'taken', when such action is taken for public safety to prevent floods or similar disasters affecting large areas including several properties, then any damage caused cannot be seen as 'taking'. Therefore, no compensation would be due even if some lands are more adversely affected than others because these actions were not aimed at them particularly but were part of general measures taken in public interest.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sponenbarger et al., it was argued that the federal government should not have been allowed to flood private lands without compensation, even if this action was taken as part of a larger plan to control flooding in general. The dissenting justices believed that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation, applied in this case. They contended that by allowing water to be diverted onto Sponenbarger's land during periods of high river flow, effectively using it as a reservoir or spillway area and causing damage, constituted a 'taking' under constitutional law and therefore required appropriate compensation.