v. Boyden, 696 F.2d 685, 687 (9th Cir.1983) (“the building activities mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 [of Section 10 of the RHA, 33 U.S.C. § 403] are presumed to be obstructions to navigable capacity”) (quoting S g the government to remove obstacles to navigable waters under the RHA, whether constructed lawfully or not, the court finds that the Corps is likely to prevail on . the merits. B. Navigational Servitude and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment Gateway next argues that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents the Corps from removing portions of the piers without compensation because it does not possess a federal navigational servitude over the waters in which the piers stand. United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 320, 37 S.Ct. 380, 381-82, 61 L.Ed. 746 (1917) (<HOLDING>). A navigational servitude embodies the concept
holding that a private right of action exists recognizing private right of action holding that congress had the authority under the commerce clause to require private riparian land owners to obtain a license prior to construction of dams even where the river in question was not navigable but could potentially have been made navigable holding lake on private land was not navigable in fact and there was no right of public use and enjoyment as lake was not fed by or part of a navigable stream holding that private property in beds and shores of navigable streams is subject to the exercise of the public right of navigation