"Where the government by the construction of a dam or other public works so floods lands belonging to an individual as to substantially destroy their value there is a taking within the scope of the Fifth Amendment. While the government does not directly proceed to appropriate the title, yet it takes away the use and value; when that is done it is of little consequence in …

—for example, which held that the Federal Government's permanent flooding of the plaintiff's land constituted a compensable "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, this Court consistently made separate reference to condemnation proceedings and to the landowner's cause of action to recover damages for the taking.

`The law will imply a promise to make the required compensation, where property to which the government asserts no title, is taken, pursuant to an act of Congress, as private property to be applied for public uses.'***

"[W] here the government by the construction of a dam or other public works so floods lands belonging to an individual as to substantially destroy their value there is a taking within the scope of the 5th Amendment."

"If any one proposition can be considered as settled by the decisions of this court it is that although in the discharge of its duties the Government may appropriate property, it cannot do so without being liable to the obligation cast by the fifth amendment of paying just compensation."

—the Schillinger Case was treated as subsisting authority, and Mr. Justice Brown, who wrote the opinion in the Dooley Case, in his concurring opinion in the Lynah Case, considered it as correctly declaring the law.

—case the plaintiff's rice plantation was rendered worthless by the Government's raising the water in the Savannah River.

It is that event which gives rise to the claim for compensation and fixes the date as of which the land is to be valued and the Government's obligation to pay interest accrues.

It is true, as the dissenting opinion observes, that claims for just compensation were sometimes brought in quasi contract rather than tort.

These suits against the Government are authorized by the Tucker Act either as claims "founded upon the Constitution of the United States" or as arising upon implied contracts with the Government