We are not now called upon to decide whether in a situation like this a landowner might be allowed to bring suit as soon as inundation threatens. Assuming that such an action would be sustained, it is not a good enough reason why he must sue then or have, from that moment, the statute of limitations run against him. If suit must be brought, lest he jeopardize his rights, as soon as his land is invaded, other contingencies would be running against him-for instance, the uncertainty of the damage and the risk of res judicata against recovering later for damage as yet uncertain. The source of the entire claim the overflow due to rises in the level of the riveris not a single event; it is continuous. And as there is nothing in reason, so there is nothing in legal doctrine, to preclude the law from meeting such a process by postponing suit until the situation becomes stabilized. An owner of land flooded by the Government would not unnaturally postpone bringing a suit against the Government for the flooding until the consequences of inundation have so manifested themselves that a final account may be struck.

When dealing with a problem which arises under such diverse circumstances procedural rigidities should be avoided. All that we are here holding is that when the Government chooses not to condemn land but to bring about a taking by a continuing process of physical events, the owner is not required to resort either to piecemeal or to premature litigation to ascertain the just compensation for what is really "taken." Accordingly, we find that the taking which was the basis of these suits was not complete six years prior to April 1, 1943, nor at a time preceding Dickinson's ownership. In this conclusion we are fortified by the fact that the two lower courts reached the same conclusion on what is after all a practical matter and not a technical rule of law.

Nothing heretofore ruled by the Court runs counter to what we have said. The Government finds comfort in Portsmouth Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 327. But in that case the problem was whether by putting a gun battery into permanent position with a view to converting an area, for all practical purposes, into an artillery range, the Government inevitably took an easement in the land over which the guns were to be fired. The issue was not when a suit must be brought on a claim in respect to land taken by the United States, which is the issue before us, but whether there had been a taking at all.

Second. The Government challenges the compensation awarded for damage to the land due to erosion. It regards this damage as consequential, to be borne without any right to compensation. Peabody v. United States, 231 U. S. 530. Of course, payment need only be made for what is taken, but for all that the Government takes it must pay. When it takes property by flooding, it takes the land which it permanently floods as well as that which inevitably washes away as a result of that flooding. The mere fact that all the United States needs and physically appropriates is the land up to the new level of the river, does not determine what in nature it has taken. If the Government cannot take the acreage it wants without also washing away more, that more becomes part of the taking. This falls under a principle that in other aspects has frequently been recognized by this Court. It was thus put in Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 574: "when part only of a parcel of land is taken for a highway, the value of that part is not the sole measure of the compensation or damages to be paid to the owner; but the incidental injury or benefit to the part not taken is also to be considered. When the part not taken is left in such shape or condition as to be in itself of less value than before, the owner is entitled to additional damages on that ac

count." So, also, United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333; United States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S. 180. Compare Sharp v. United States, 191 U. S. 341, 355; Campbell v. United States, 266 U. S. 368. Congress has recognized that damage to the owner is assessed not only for the value of the part taken but also "for any injury to the part not taken." See § 6 of the Act of July 18, 1918, 40 Stat. 911, 33 U. S. C. 595. If the resulting erosion which, as a practical matter, constituted part of the taking was in fact preventable by prudent measures, the cost of that prevention is a proper basis for determining the damage, as the courts below held.

Third. At considerable expense, and with the consent of the War Department, Dickinson reclaimed most of his land which the Government originally took by flooding. The Government claims that this disentitled him to be paid for the original taking. The courts below properly rejected this defense. When the property was flooded the United States acquired the land and it became part of the river. By his reclamation, Dickinson appropriated part of what belonged to the United States. Whether the War Department could legally authorize Dickinson's reclamation or whether it was in fact a trespass however innocent, is not before us. But no use to which Dickinson could subsequently put the property by his reclamation efforts changed the fact that the land was taken when it was taken and an obligation to pay for it then arose.

Fourth. Judgment was also allowed against the United States for taking an easement for intermittent flooding of land above the new permanent level, and a value for such easements was assessed. We find nothing in this record to justify our setting aside these concurrent findings by two courts. United States v. O'Donnell, 303 U. S. 501, 508; Allen v. Trust Co., 326 U. S. 630, 636.

Judgments affirmed.

AIRCRAFT & DIESEL EQUIPMENT CORP. v. HIRSCH ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 95. Argued January 15, 1947. Decided June 16, 1947.

1. Pursuant to the First and Second Renegotiation Acts, the Secretary of War and the War Contracts Adjustment Board, respectively, determined that appellant had realized excessive profits during two years on subcontracts under which it had supplied parts to contractors manufacturing war equipment for the Army; and the Under Secretary of War directed certain of appellant's customers to withhold and pay into the Treasury sums due appellant equal to such excessive profits (less tax credits) for the second of the years in question. After petitioning the Tax Court for redetermination and while such proceedings were pending, appellant sued in a federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the Renegotiation Acts are unconstitutional and for an injunction against further proceedings thereunder. Held:

(a) The suit is premature, since appellant had not exhausted its administrative remedy before the Tax Court. Pp. 764-774.

(b) The district court had no jurisdiction in equity, since appellant had a complete remedy at law by actions against the contractors to which it had supplied the parts. Pp. 774-781.

2. Mere suggestions of claim for relief raising serious constitutional questions are not to be entertained upon dubious presentations or, most certainly, when the presentation reasonably may be taken as not intended to put them forward squarely and inescapably. P. 763.

3. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires not merely the initiation of prescribed administrative procedures; it requires pursuing them to their appropriate conclusion and awaiting their final outcome before seeking judicial intervention. P. 767. 4. Where Congress has clearly commanded that administrative judgment be taken initially or exclusively, the courts have no lawful function to anticipate the administrative decision with their own, whether or not when it has been rendered they may intervene either in presumed accordance with Congress' will or because, for constitutional reasons, its will to exclude them has been exerted in an invalid manner. P. 767.

752

Statement of the Case.

5. By providing in the Renegotiation Acts for administrative determinations of excessive profits by the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board and for redeterminations de novo by the Tax Court, Congress intended to secure uniformity of administrative policy and disposition, expertness of judgment, and finality of determination, at least of those things which Congress intended to and could commit to such agencies for final decision. Pp. 767-768.

6. Congress intended the Tax Court's functions with respect to redetermination of excessive profits under war contracts not only to be put in motion but to be fully performed, before judicial intervention at the instance of one in appellant's position, even though constitutional questions are raised. P. 771.

7. Where Congress clearly intended to require administrative determination, either to the exclusion of judicial action or in advance of it, a strong showing is required, both of inadequacy of the prescribed procedure and of impending harm, to permit short-circuiting the administrative process--especially in the case of wartime legislation resting, at least in part, on war powers. Pp. 773–774. 8. Appellant subcontractor has an adequate remedy at law by suits upon its contracts against its customers; since such suits are not forbidden expressly or impliedly by the Renegotiation Acts, they are not made dependent upon completion of the Tax Court proceedings, and there appears to be no reason why every question of constitutionality raised in this suit could not be presented and determined in such a suit. Pp. 775-777.

9. Appellant's allegations that it would suffer irreparable injury as a result of the withholding of the funds due from its customers are insufficient to sustain the intervention of a court of equity, particularly to avoid or anticipate the congressionally authorized proceeding. Pp. 777-778.

10. Nor, on the facts of this case, is the showing made concerning multiplicity of suits sufficient to justify intervention of a court of equity or the substitution of its extraordinary relief for what appears to be a full, adequate and completely available remedy at law. Pp. 778-781.

62 F. Supp. 520, affirmed.

While proceedings were pending in the Tax Court for redetermination of excessive profits determined by the Secretary of War and the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board to have been realized by a subcontractor on production of war equipment, the subcontractor sued in