T] he nature and extent of the rights of the state and of riparian owners in navigable waters within the state and to the soil beneath are matters of state law to be determined by the statutes and judicial decisions of the state

—adding that "the Fourteenth Amendment, in the absence of an attempt to forestall our review of the constitutional question, affords no protection to supposed rights of property which the state courts determine to be nonexistent

Thus, for purposes of public use of waters, the state may adopt different and less stringent tests of navigability

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court continued to follow the Muhlker view that the Court could reconsider a state court decision if a property holder challenged a legislative or executive action as a taking and the state court ruled there was no property to take

But we do not have revisory power over state practice, provided such practice is not used to evade constitutional guarantees.

That right was property; and such a right recognized as private property by the law of a state is one which under the Constitution the federal government is bound to recognize.

But a mere unilateral expectation or an abstract need is not a property interest entitled to protection.

Such cases involved an illegitimate exercise of legislative power, however, and they were distinguished in Parden on that ground.

“In so holding [that the rights of riparian owners were subordinate to state control of navigable waters] it does not appear that the court ran below counter to any established rule of property of the state.”

"[If the States] choose to resign to the riparian proprietor rights which properly belong to them in their sovereign capacity, it is not for others to raise objections."