In the United States v. Willow River Power Co., 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States government over a dispute regarding water rights and compensation for damages caused by a dam project. The Willow River Power Company claimed that their property value had been diminished due to changes in water levels brought about by a federal dam construction upstream on the St. Croix River, Wisconsin. They sought compensation under Fifth Amendment provisions against taking private property without just compensation. However, the court held that while there was indeed damage to Willow's power production capabilities because of reduced headwater (the height difference between intake and outflow), this did not constitute an appropriation of any recognized property right deserving compensation since they didn't own exclusive rights to natural river flow conditions or specific water levels.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Willow River Power Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to award compensation to Willow River Power Company for damages caused by a government dam project that raised water levels and reduced its power production capacity. He argued that while it was true that the company had suffered losses, these were not due to any physical invasion of their property by the government but rather from an indirect consequence of public improvements made upstream which they did not have exclusive rights over in the first place. According to him, such incidental injuries should be considered as part of social burdens everyone must bear without compensation under eminent domain law principles unless there is direct appropriation or invasion on one’s private property rights by governmental action.