the RHA authorizes the removal of any structures that violate section 403, even those that were constructed lawfully- Gateway’s interpretation of the RHA is supported neither by logic nor by precedent. As the United States correctly argues, the purpose of the RHA is to grant the Corps broad discretion over the navigable waters of the United States. United States v. Alaska, 503 U.S. 569, 578-80, 112 S.Ct. 1606, 1612, 118 L.Ed.2d 222 (1992) (“We read the 1899 Act charitably in light of the pur pose to be served.”) (quoting United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U.S. 482, 491, 80 S.Ct. 884, 890, 4 L.Ed.2d 903 (1960)). To deem the RHA inapplicable to pre-existing structures would sharply restrict the ability of the government to preserve , 400, 27 S.Ct. 367, 380, 51 L.Ed. 523 (1907) (<HOLDING>); West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago, 201 U.S.
holding constitutional a statute providing that a mineral interest would lapse to the surface owner if the interest owner either made no use of the interest or failed to file a claim with the state within a twenty year period holding that government could demand without providing compensation that bridge built under state authority be altered at great expense to owner holding that plaintiffs cannot cover all the bases by having one shareholder make a demand and another allege demand futility spiegel requires shareholders to choose either to make demand or attempt to establish demand futility holding that owner of land sought to be taken for public use has a vested right to compensation pursuant to law in effect at time of filing of petition because filing of petition creates an immediate fixed and determinate right to any compensation holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law