and non-compensable overflights); Aaron v. United States, 160 Ct.Cl. 295, 311 F.2d 798, 801 (1963) (allowing claims based on flights below 500 feet, while denying those based on flights over 500 feet); Matson v. United States, 145 Ct.Cl. 225, 171 F.Supp. 283, 286 (1959) (allowing recovery for flights under 500 feet). These cases found support for the 500-foot rule in the regulatory definition of “navigable airspace,” see 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c), but other cases recognized that the United States may still take private property even where its overflights occur wholly within the “navigable airspace.” See Branning, 654 F.2d at 101-02 (allowing recovery although the overflights were wholly within navigable airspace that the United States had a right to occupy); Aaron, 311 F.2d at 801 (<HOLDING>); Matson, 171 F.Supp. at 285 (finding a taking
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 that private property in beds and shores of navigable streams is subject to the exercise of the public right of navigation recognizing possibility of recovery where travel in the navigable air space is so severe as to amount to a practical destruction or a substantial impairment of private property 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 recognizing private right of action