remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them. If the regulatory statute is otherwise within the powers of Congress, therefore, its application may not be defeated by private contractual provisions. For the same reason, the fact that legislation disregards or destroys existing contractual rights does not always transform the regulation into an illegal taking. This is not to say that contractua ority to enact section 22960. The United States did not delegate to California the authority to enact that law. Third, this case is distinguishable from those cases in which a state or local official was acting under the authority of a federal order or law. See Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525, 1550 (Fed.Cir.1996) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364,
holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where city of burlington acted under federal authority holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where california officials acting under the authority of a federal order occupied land holding that the county government not the federal government was liable for the taking of an air easement over plaintiffs property even though the airport was funded in part by a federal grant based on compliance with federal regulations recognizing that stateimposed restrictions upon property may be attributed to the federal government for purposes of a takings analysis where the state officials acted as agents of the federal government or pursuant to federal authority