WPC5b k[D7WA|>mf JE* *kcV]Lė`,h\3o"L& 7 60:|MhڨbuR"&vuejI-OXx70 jO(˴搰b!s%vWv~ DȚ;/CBo-.xbLW$ӭhai7mI1N/#Rw~r3WZ3ڲ# weʣl_dcc5]2"psE CW-";BKѯDtݸ@xt0eF]% G> oY9y)/i00@{}Ws^푑Ȣ KO{KxGC>0 0v|0 0`0 0`R1 0`1 0`2 0`r2 082 0 3 023 04 0: 5 0YD5 0_5 0 5 0j7 0p8 B*9 D/: 0M: D/; 0< 06< 0= 0: > 0^F> 0<> 0 >U6?U>@U*?@ Bi@c@ 0F D5G D-G 0KGUN:H ASHH 0I 0DEJ AJg4KF S]_bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb-bHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,07L+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5+8 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U A Rx$      2  XIX  _]XXIThereasoningbehindexcludingthistypeofestimationis(1)itcallsfortheinferenceofthevalueofthe e propertytakenbecausethereisnodirecttestimonyaboutthevalueofthespecificpieceofpropertytakenand(2)it ) combinesthecomputationsofvalueofthespecificpieceofpropertytakenanddamagestotheremainingpropertydue  tothetaking.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    Rx$      3  XIX  _]XXIThesenumbersareestimationscalculatedfromthenumbersprovidedinthebriefsoftheparties.Theymay e notbeexactandareusedbythiscourtstrictlyforexplicativepurposes.#XIX]~#  Rx$      4  XIX  _]XXIInadditiontofaircompensationforpropertyactuallytaken,alandownermaybeentitledto incidental e damagestothelandremaininginhispossessionafterapartialtaking.Statev.Parkes,557S.W.2d504,507(Tenn. ) 1977).DamagestotheremainingportionofLandownerspropertywerenotpledinthiscase. P Rx$      1  XIX  _]XXIThecityfiledathirdmotion,butthetrialjudgesrulingonthatmotionwasnotappealedbyeitherpartyinthis e case.#XIX]~#2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7I(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dH)1dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanSH)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (|G2x$ !.8I%dXXd8         0  XIX<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d Y Rx$      7  XIX  _]XXIInMunciePulpCo.,119Tenn.at9495,104_S.W._Ԁat449,ourSupremeCourtdescribedtheconsequenceof e theMississippiRiverhavingbeendeclaredanavigablewateroftheUnitedStatesbyCongressasfollows: ) ''ThecommerceclauseoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,allotherthingsaside,affordsampleprotection L totherightofeverycitizentothefreenavigationoftheriver,whetherthecurrentbeinonestateortheother, u withoutfearorhindranceorburdensimposedbysuchstates.#XIX]~# 9 ]XXI'Inaddition,inCates,158S.W.at749,ourSupremeCourtstated:  \ 'ThechiefimportanceofdeterminingwhetherReelfootLakeisnavigableinthetechnicallegalsensedoesnot I   concernitsuseasapublichighwayforcommerce,butisinregardtotherespectiverightsofthepublicand    privatepersonintheuseandownershipofitswatersandthelandssubmergedbythem.Itisprimarilya  l  questionofdominionandownership,ratherthanoneofcommerceandtravel.Therightofthepublictouse  0  itswatersasahighwayforcommerceispreciselythesame...#XIX]Z#Ԁ.(|3IP$ !.8I%dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IP$ !.8I%dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK ] Rx$      8  XIX  _]XXIThecityarguesthatthestatelegislaturesadoptionofTennesseeCodeAnnotated691117constitutesstate e recognitionofthenavigabilityofwaterwayswhicharesubjecttotheRiversandHarborsAct.Werespectfullydisagree.#XIX]~#]XXI ) Thatstatuteispartofachapteronwatercourseswhichbeginswiththestatementthatallnavigablewatersarepublic  highways.Thatprovisionhasbeendeterminedtobemerelyastatementofthecommonlaw,and,evenwithoutthe L statute,commonlawforbidstheobstructionofnavigablestreams.SouthernRy.Co.,105Tenn.552,562,59_S.W._Ԁ343, u 345(1900).Theremainderofthechapterdealsprimarilywithkeepingsuchwaterwaysopenfornavigation.Tothat 9 end,TennesseeCodeAnnotated691117prohibitsanyprojectwhichmayimpairthenavigabilityofanywaterway  inthestatewithoutapermitissuedbythestatedepartmentofenvironmentandconservation.Tenn.CodeAnn.691  \ 117#XIX]#]XXI(a).Theportionofthatstatuteuponwhichthecityplacessignificancesimplystatesthatanywaterwaysubjectto   theRiversandHarborsActisexemptfromthepermitrequirements.Weinterpretthatprovisionmerelyasrecognizing I   theCorpsofEngineerspermittingauthorityforthosewaterwayscoveredbythatAct.Totheextentthatthestatutecan    bereadasdeferringauthoritytothefederalgovernment,itrelatesonlytopermittingauthority.Wefindnolegislative  l  intenttograntauthoritytodetermineownershiprightsunderstatelawtoanagencyofthefederalgovernment.#XIX]y# < Rx$      6  XIX  _]XXIThecityalsoincludedinitsmotioninlimineregardingLandownersexpertstestimonyarequestthatifthe e trialcourtallowedtheexpertstestimonythatit, [_i]n_Ԁthealternative...disallowanytestimonybasedonthecomparable ) salesusedin[theexperts]report.Thecitymadeitsobjectiononthegroundthatsuchtestimonywouldnotberelevant,  andthetrialcourtcharacterizeditasbasedonthetheorythatthe_comparables_Ԁusedbytheappraiser arenotsufficiently L comparabletothelandinquestion.Thetrialcourtactuallygrantedthecitysmotion,butstatedthat itappearsthat u upondirectexamination,nopartyshouldbeentitledtodiscusswiththeirexpertwitnessescomparablesalesspecifically, 9 becauseinfacteveryoneoflandisunique,andthefactthatanotherparcel...soldforsomedollarvalueishearsay..  .andwouldbeexcludedongroundsofrelevance.Thecourtfurtherstatedthat [_t]he_Ԁopportunitytoexploresuch  \ comparablesalesrestswiththepartywhocrossexaminestheexpertwitnessshouldthatpartyseektoattackthebasis   fortheopinionoftheexpertstatedondirect.Thiscourthasstatedthat [_a]s_Ԁtovalue,theexpertwitnessmayexpress I   hisopinionandthenstatethebasisonwhichhearrivedatthatopinion,buttheanswersgiventothequestionsoncross    examinationmaybelookedtobytheCourt...inevaluatingtheopinionexpressedbythe[expert]._Brevard_,545  l  S.W.2dat437.Thecityhasarguedthe comparablesalesissueinitsbrief.However,wedeclinetoaddressthequestion  0  oftheadmissibilityofpotentialtestimonywhichmayormaynotbeelicitedbythecityoncrossexaminationof Y  Landownersexpert.Further,thecitysmotionwasgranted,andthecitysapplicationforinterlocutoryappealwas   grantedbythetrialcourtandbythiscourttoreview themethodof...valuationusedbytheappraiser.  Rx$      9  XIX  _]XXIWedonotholdthatareductionoftheamountoflandactuallytakenwouldresultautomaticallyina e concomitantreductioninthevalueofthelandtaken.Thatissueremainstobedecidedbythejurywhoistodetermine ) thejustcompensationdueLandownerinlightofallrelevantcircumstances.#XIX]~#  Rx$      5  XIX  _]XXITotheextentthecitysrealproblemisamethodologywhichvaluesalltheacresonLandownersproperty e equally,thecityisfreetocrossexaminetheappraiserregardingthoseissuesandtopresentexperttestimonyofitsown ) tocontradictthevalueestimatedbyLandownersappraiser.#XIX]~# e   !.8I%dd8     _I%8IXXdd8   fO@ VI%INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#I%V#Ԉ & XIXI%@ #I%XXI#July13,2000Session L    CITYOFMURFREESBOROv.PIERCEHARDYREALESTATE,INC.XIXI%  2  Q@  AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforRutherfordCounty 2  @ No.35319RobertE.Corlew,Judge  n @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ 2  @ No.M200000562_COA_ԄR9CVFiledOctober12,_2001_Ԉ -  AV) ` dE<` A     ThiscaseinvolvesadisputebetweentheCityofMurfreesboroandalandowneroverthe  valueandtheacreageofatractoflandtakenbythecitytobeusedforagreenwayalongtheStones  River.Thecityappealsthetrialcourtsdenialofamotioninliminethatthecityfiledtoexclude  testimonyofthelandownersappraiser.Themotionstatedthattheexpertstestimonyreliedonan t inadmissiblemethodofvaluationandshould,therefore,beexcluded.Additionally,thelandowner ` appealsthetrialcourtsrulingthatthelandownerdidnotowna.61acreportionoftheoftheland L takenbecause,asitsitsatthebottomofanavigablewaterway,itisnotsubjecttoprivateownership. 8    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt ` AffirmedinPart,ReversedinPart,andRemanded  L JPatriciaJ.#I%XI#XIX.I%Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J., $ W.S.,andAlanE.Highers,J.,joined.  ThomasL.Reed,Jr.,JerryE.Farmer,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Cityof   Murfreesboro,AMunicipalCorporationinRutherfordCounty,StateofTennessee. !  G.SumnerR.Bouldin,Jr.,Murfreesboro,Tennessee,fortheappellee,PierceHardyRealEstate,Inc. \#" #I%XXI: #XIXI%@66' OPINION #I%XXI| #Ԉ 4% $   XIXI%TheCityofMurfreesborocondemned2.36acresofa10.5acrecommercialtractthatwas 2'"& ownedbyPierceHardyRealEstate,Inc.( Landowner)andlocatedalongtheWestForkofthe (n#' StonesRiver.Thecitydesiredtotake,andsubsequentlyhastaken,thelandfortheconstructionof  )Z$( agreenwayalongtheriver.The2.36acretractiscomprisedof.61acreslocatedintheriverbedof )F%) theStonesRiverand1.75acreslocatedalongtheembankmentoftheriver.Landownersdeed *2&* describesthepropertyasrunningtothecenteroftheriver.Thecondemnedpropertyincludesland +'+ atthebottomoftheriver(betweenthecenterlineoftheriverandtheriverbank),theriverbank , (, (includingsheerbluffs),andastripacrossthetopofthebluffs. -(- fO fe f    Inthetrialcourt,thecityfiledtwomotionswhicharethesubjectofthisappeal. #  1      ׀Thefirst e wasamotiontohavethetestimonyofLandownersappraiserexcludedonthebasisthatthe Q appraiserusedanimpropermethodofvaluation.Landownersappraiserplannedtotestifythatthe = entiretracttakenbythecitywasvaluedat$70,000.00peracreand,sincethecitywastaking2.36 ) acres,thecityowedjustcompensationof$165,200.00.ThecitysmotioncitedtheTennessee  SupremeCourtdecisionWrayv.Knoxville,L.F.&_J.R._ԀCo.,113Tenn.544,82_S.W._Ԁ471,473   (1904),andstatedthattheplannedtestimonyoftheexpertviolateditsprecedentand,therefore,   shouldbeexcluded.Thetrialjudgedeniedthismotion,andthecityappealsthatruling.  t   ThesecondmotionfiledbythecitywastohavetheWestForkoftheStonesRiver  L  recognizedasanavigablewaterway.Thecitycontendedthat,pursuanttoTennesseelaw,the  8  riverbedofanavigablewaterwayisincapableofprivateownership.Therefore,Landownerwould $  notbeentitledtocompensationforthatportionofthecondemnedland.Insupportofitscontention, u  thecityassertedthattheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineershadgivenpublicnoticethattheCorpshad a  determinedthatthewaterwaywasnavigable.Further,thecityargued,suchnoticewasdispositive M  ontheissueofwhetherthewaterwaywasnavigableand,asthefederalgovernmentwasasserting 9  jurisdictionovertheriver,theriverwasnavigable.Thetrialjudgeagreed,statingthat asapractical % matterbecausethefederalgovernmentwasassertingjurisdictionovertheriver,neithertheState  oraprivatepartycouldclaimarighttotheland.Landownerappealsthatruling.  @I.StandardofReviewfortheTrialJudgesRulingonExpertTestimony p   ThefirstissuebeforethiscourtiswhetherthetestimonyofLandownersappraisershould H beadmitted.The trialjudge,ofcourse,hasverybroaddiscretionintheconductofatrial,and 4 probablyinnoareadoeshehavewiderdiscretionthandealingwiththe...admissionofthe   testimonyofexpertwitnesses.ShelbyCountyv.Barden,527S.W.2d124,131(Tenn.1975).In q  condemnationcases,atrialcourtisallowedwidediscretionwhenrulingonmattersrelatedtoexpert ] testimony.StateDeptofTransp.v.Veglio,786S.W.2d944,94748(Tenn.Ct.App.1989);State I exrel.Moultonv.Blake,357S.W.2d836,838(Tenn.Ct.App.1961).Further,Tennesseecaselaw 5 generallyholdsthatthetrialjudgeswidediscretionextendstothe admissibilityofaexpert ! testimonyasto[the]valueofthelandtakenincondemnationcasesbecausetheweighttobegiven   eachexpertstestimonyisforthetrieroffact.Stateexrel.DeptofTransp.v.Brevard,545S.W.2d   431,436(Tenn.Ct.App.1976).Trialcourtshavebroaddiscretionovertheadmissionofall !  evidenceconcerningthevalueofcondemnedland.CityofJohnsonCityv.OutdoorWest,Inc.,947 "l! S.W.2d855,858(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Ourrole,therefore,istoreviewthetrialcourts #X" determinationontheadmissibilityoftheproposedexpertstestimonyregardingvaluationoftheland $D # takenbythecityunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard.Veglio,786S.W.2dat948. %0!$ \XIXXXI  Theabuseofdiscretionstandardrequiresustoconsider(1)whetherthedecisionhasa m'#& sufficientevidentiaryfoundation,(2)whetherthetrialcourtcorrectlyidentifiedandproperlyapplied Y(#' theappropriatelegalprinciples,and(3)whetherthedecisioniswithintherangeofacceptable e alternatives.Stateexrel.Vaughnv.Kaatrude,21S.W.3d244,248(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).While Q wewillsetasideadiscretionarydecisionifitdoesnotrestonanadequateevidentiaryfoundation, = orifitiscontrarytothegoverninglaw,wewillnotsubstituteourjudgmentforthatofthetrialcourt ) merelybecausewemighthavechosenanotheralternative.#XIXX\XI #    @??II.MotioninLiminetoExcludeTestimonybytheLandownersAppraiser     Whenapublicentitytakeslandbyexerciseofthepowerofeminentdomain,just  ` compensationmustbepaidtothelandowners.Tenn.Const.art.1,21.Thus,thecourtsobjective  L  inaneminentdomainproceedingistodetermineandawardjustcompensation.Lovev.Smith,566  8  S.W.2d876,878(Tenn.1978);Statev.Williams,828S.W.2d397,400(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).The $  required justcompensationisthefairmarketvalue,incash,ofthelandactuallytaken,atthedate u  oftheappropriation.Allowayv.CityofNashville,13S.W.123,123(Tenn.1890);Tenn.CodeAnn. a  2917810. Marketvalueisthe pricewhichwouldbepaidbyawillingbuyerfromawilling M  selleratthetimethelandwastaken.Williams,828S.W.2dat401.Itisestimatedasiftheowner 9  werewillingtosell,butdidnothavetosell,andthetakerdesiredtopurchase,butdidnothaveto % purchase,thatparticularquantityoflandatthatplaceandinthatform.Brevard,545S.W.2dat  434.    Asageneralrule,indeterminingthecompensation,orthemarketvalueofthepropertytaken, p everyelementwhichcanfairlyenterintothequestionofvaluemaybeconsidered.29A_C.J.S._ \ EminentDomain119,at316(1992);_Alloway_,88Tenn.at510,13_S.W._Ԁat124(indetermining H marketvalue,everythingthatenhancesordepreciatesvaluemustbeconsidered).\XIXXXIInarrivingatfair 4 marketvalue,allattributesoftheproperty,includingreasonablyavailableuses,aretobetakeninto   consideration,withoutundueemphasisonasingleelementinrelationtogeneralvalue.Shelby q  Countyv.Stallcup,594S.W.2d392,39495(Tenn.Ct.App.1979).#XIXX\XI+#ԀAlloftheconstituentelements ] ofthelandaffectitsmarketvalue.State_Dept_.ofTrans.v.Woods,No.01A019308CV00383, I 1994WL44955,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.16,1994)(noTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). 5 Whilethejuryislimitedinawardingjustcompensationtotherangeofmarketvaluesestablished ! bythecompetentproof,thejuryisentitledtoconsiderallrelevantfactorsaffectingthevalue.City   ofJohnsonCity,947S.W.2dat860.     Tomeettheobjectiveofdeterminingfairmarketvalue,the trieroffactmusthearproof. "l! Statev.Cox,840S.W.2d357,363(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Themarketvalueisarrivedatby #X" estimatingthe specific,identicallandtakenbyplacingavalueuponit.Thiscanonlybedoneby $D # astatementoffacts,andbyopinionsandestimatesofpartiesacquaintedwiththelandanduponsuch %0!$ facts,opinions,andestimatesofthelandmustthevaluationbebased.Wray,82S.W.at473. &"% Evidenceofvalueinajustcompensationcase mustberestricted...tothegeneralvalueoftheland, m'#& estimateduponconsiderationinasingleviewofallitselementsofvalue....Brevard,545 Y(#' S.W.2dat434.ThecourtsofthisStatehave followedapolicyofliberalityinadmittingopinion E)$( evidencerespectingthefaircashmarketvalueofrealestate.Smithv.LivingstonLimestoneCo., 1*%) Inc.,547S.W.2d942,943(Tenn.1977). +&*   ,'+   \XIXXXIIntheusualcourseofproceedings,thelandownerandthetakingauthorityproducewitnesses, e oftenexperts,whotestifyregardingthefairmarketvalueoftheproperty.See,e.g.SmithCountyv. Q Eatherly,820S.W.2d366,368(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).#XIXX\XI4#ԀWhenanexperttestifiesastothevalueof = thelandtaken, thejuryisnotrequiredtoacceptorrejectintotothetheoryofeitherparty,butmay ) arriveatitsownconceptoftruthandjusticefromtheevidence.CityofJohnsonCity,947S.W.2d  at859(quotingStateexrel.Shawv.Shofner,573S.W.2d169,174(Tenn.Ct.App.1978)).Thejury   isentitledtoconsiderthecredibilityofanexpertstestimonyonthevalueoflandinlightofall   relevantevidence.Id.at859;Chambersv.BradleyCounty,53Tenn.App.,455,461,384S.W.2d  t 43,45(1964)( Thegeneralrulethattheweighttobegivenexpertopinionevidenceisforthejury  ` istoofamiliartojustifyextendedcitationofcases.).  L    Anexpertwitnessqualifiedby knowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducationmay $  testifytoscientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgeifit willsubstantiallyassistthetrier u  offacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue.Tenn.R.Evid.702.Atrialcourt a  maydisallowexperttestimonyiftheunderlyingfactsordatashowalackoftrustworthiness.Tenn. M  R.Evid.703.Thefactsordataunderlyingtheexpertsopinionmustbe ofatypereasonablyrelied 9  uponbyexpertsintheparticularfieldinformingopinionsorinferences.Id.Inaddition,thetrial % judgehas widediscretioninpassingupontheadmissibilityofexperttestimonyastovalue.  _Brevard_,545S.W.2dat43637.Further,anexpertwitnessisnotdisqualifiedtotestifymerely  becausehemayhaveusedsomecriteriainarrivingathisopinionwhichisnotaltogetherthestandard  amongappraisers.Id. p   Obviously,anappraisersestimateofthevalueofthecondemnedportionofLandowners H propertywouldbehelpfultoafactfinderwhoseresponsibilitywastosetthatvalue.Inthecase 4 beforeus,thecityopposestheappraiserstestimonyregardingvaluebecauseofthemethodologyhe   usedtoarriveatthatvalue.Theattackdoesnot,however,restonaclaimthatthemethodologyis q  notonereasonablyrelieduponinthefieldofappraisal.Instead,theCityofMurfreesborosought ] toexcludethetestimonyofLandownersexpertonthebasisthathisestimateofthevalueoftheland I takenwasarrivedatbyamethoddeterminedtobeimproperinWrayv.Knoxville,LaFallette& 5 JellicoRailroadCo.,113Tenn.544,82S.W.471(1904).Inthatcase,theTennesseeSupreme ! Courtdeterminedthatthetrialcourthadused(throughsustainingobjectionstotestimonyandits   instructionstothejury)anincorrectmethodforvaluingthespecificlandtaken.   8  Bytherulelaiddownbythelearnedtrialjudgethespecificlandtakenisnever "l! valued.Hedirectsthewitnessestovaluethewholetract,includingtherightofway, #X" andthentovaluetheremainderofthetract,excludingtherightofway,andtheyare $D # neverpermittedtovaluethelandactuallytaken,butonlytoinfer,byaprocessof %0!$ subtractingthevalueoftheremainderfromthevalueofthewholetract,whatisthe &"% valueoftheparttaken.Butthewitnesseswerenotpermittedtovaluethelandtaken, m'#& andthisiswhatthelawsaystheyshalldo.Y(#'   _Wray_,113Tenn.at554,82_S.W._Ԁat473. 1*%)   +&*   IntheWraydecisiontheTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthataninference,orbeforeandafter, e  methodofvaluationisinappropriate.Id.Abeforeandaftermethodisoneinwhichthevalueofthe Q landiscomputedasthedifferencebetweenthevalueoftheentiretractoflandbeforethetakingand = thevaluethelandremainingafterthetaking.Id.  #  2      ׀Thus,thismethodestimatesanydecreaseinthe ) valueofthelandremaining,notthevalueofthelandtaken.    Thecityequatestheappraisersmethodologyhereinwiththebeforeandaftervaluationof   theuntakenportionofaparceldisallowedinWray.Werespectfullydisagreewiththat  t characterization.InsupportforitsrequestthecitycitestheWraydecisionforthepropositionthat  `  [t]heWrayCourtheldthattakingaperacrevalueforanentiretract,thensubtractingthevalueof  L  theremainderfromthevalueofthewholetoarriveatthevalueoftheparttakenisanincorrect  8  methodofvaluation(emphasisadded).However,thecourtin_Wray_statedthatitwasimproperfor $  atrialjudgetoinstructthejurythat thewholetractmustbefirstvaluedatwhatitwasworthbefore u  therailroadtoucheditandagainaftertherightofwaywascarvedout,andthedifferencewould a  representthevalueoftheparttakenandappropriated. M    Inthepresentcase,Landownersappraiserplannedtotestifythatthevalueofthe2.36acres % takenbythecitywas$165,200.Thatestimateisbaseduponhisopinionthatthevalueoftheentire  tractoflandownedbyLandownerwas$735,000.00 #  3      ׀andthatthetotalpropertywas10.5acres;  therefore,thepropertywasworth$70,000.00peracre.Sincethecitywastaking2.36acresofland  thatwasworth$70,000.00peracre,thevalueofthelandtakenbythecitywas$165,200.00.This p methoddoesnotconstituteconsiderationofthedecreaseinvalueoftheremainingportionof \ Landownersproperty;rather,itseekstovaluethespecificpieceoflandcondemned.Accordingly, H thistestimonydoesnotviolatetheholdingin_Wray_. 4   TheaimofthecourtinWraywastopreventtestimonythatcombinedanassessmentof q  damagestothelandremainingwithanassessmentofthevalueofthelandtaken.Thetestimonyof ] theexpertinthepresentcasedoesnotcombinethesefigures. #  4      ׀Havingdeterminedthattheproposed I testimonyisadmissibleunderthe_Wray_holding,wefindnobasisforreversingthetrialcourtinits 5 exerciseofitsbroaddiscretiontodeterminetheadmissibilityoftestimonyofexperts._Brevard_,545 ! S.W.2dat43637.Themethodologyusedbytheappraisergoestotheweighttobegivenhisopinion    ofthevalueofthelandtaken,andthetrieroffactisthefinalarbiterastothecredibilityandweight   oftestimony.e #  5      ׀DavidsonCountyBd.ofEduc.v.FirstAm._Natl_ԀBank,301_S.W._Ԁ2d905,911(Tenn. e  1957).Weaffirmthetrialcourtsexerciseofitsdiscretioninallowingthetestimonyof Q Landownersexpert._c #  6      _ =  @ III.Motionin_Limine_ԀRegardingtheNavigableWaterway    Thecityalsofiledamotionin_limine_ԀtoprecludeLandownerfromintroducingevidence   regardingthevalueof.61acreswhichispartofthe2.36acretractcondemnedbythecity.That.61  t acresispartoftheriverbedoftheWestForkoftheStonesRiverandisunderwater.Thecityasserts  ` thattheriverisanavigablewaterwayand,pursuanttoTennesseelaw,theriverbedofanavigable  L  waterwaycannotbeheldbyaprivateparty.Therefore,thecityasserts,Landownerisnotentitled  8  tocompensationforlanditcannotownorconvey. $    AsproofthattheWestForkoftheStonesRiverisanavigablewaterway,thecityrelieson a  apublicnoticepostedbytheUSArmyCorpsofEngineers,datedMay,8,1986,whichincludesa M   ListofNavigableWatersoftheUnitedStateswithintheNashvilleDistrict.Thelistofnavigable 9  watersincludes WestFork,StonesRiver.Thecityarguesthatthispublicnoticeisconclusive % evidencethattheWestForkStonesRiverisnavigable.    InTennessee,whereawaterwayis navigableinthelegalsense,itisdeemedtobeheldby  thestateintrustforthecitizens.Stateexrel._Cates_Ԁv.WestTenn.LandCo.,127Tenn.575,158 p _S.W._Ԁ746,752(Tenn.1913).Assuch,neitherthewatersnorthelandsunderlyingthemarecapable \ ofprivateownership.Id.at747. UnderTennesseelawtitletothebedofanavigablestream,tothe H  lowwatermarkispubliclyheldandbelongstotheState._Uhlhorn_Ԁv._Kaltner_,637S.W.2d844,846 4 (Tenn.1982).Thelegalconsequencesofadeterminationthatawaterwayisnavigable,inthelegal e sense,arewellsettled. Q  8  Theonlyquestionfordeterminationiswhether_Reelfoot_ԀLakeisanavigablebodyof ) waterinthetechnicallegalsenseofthatterm.Ifitis,wethinkitisbeyonddispute  upontheauthoritiesthatneitherthewatersnorthelandsunderlyingthemarecapable   ofprivateownership.Ifitisnot,andisnavigableonlyinthecommonorordinary   acceptationoftheterm,thenboththewatersandthelandsunderlyingthemare  t capableofprivateownership,andbelongtothedefendants. `   _Cates_,127Tenn.at580,158_S.W._Ԁat747.  8    Tobea navigablesuchthatitinvokestheprohibitiononprivateownership,awaterway u  must,initsordinarystate,becapableofandsuitedtonavigationbyvesselsemployedintheordinary a  purposesofcommerce._Cates_,127Tenn.at58486,158_S.W._Ԁat749.Thedeterminationofwhether M  awaterwaymeetsthedefinition,andis,therefore,navigableisoneoffacttobedeterminedbythe 9  jury.SouthernRy.Co.v.Ferguson,105Tenn.552,56263,59_S.W._Ԁ343,346(Tenn.1900). %   TheissueofwhethertheStonesRiverisanavigablewaterwaywasnotdeterminedherein,  however,onthebasisofafactualrecord.Instead,thetrialcourtfound:  8  TheruleinTennesseehasalwaysbeenthatthequestionofnavigabilityofastream \ isoneoffactwhichmustbedeterminedbyajury.Wherethefederalgovernment, H however,haspreviouslydeterminedastreamtobenavigable,itappearsthatfroma 4 practicalstandpoint,onewhoseekstoasserthispossessionofthelandlyingunder   thenavigablestreamwouldbepreventedfromdoingsobyvirtueoffederal q  enactmentscontrollingthosestreams.Thus,wherethefederalgovernmentis ] exercisingjurisdictionovertheportionoftheStonesRiverinquestion,neitherthe I StatenortheCity,andcertainlynotaprivatelandownerhasanyauthoritytoexercise 5 domainoverthatsoilcoveredbythenavigablewaterway,andthusfromapractical ! standpoint,itappearsthatthelandownerinthiscauseshouldbepreventedfrom   introducingproofconcerningthatlandbelowthelowwatermarkoftheriver.      Thus,theissuebeforeusiswhetheradeterminationbythefederalgovernment,ormore "l! accuratelyitsagenttheCorpsofEngineers,thatawaterwayisnavigableforfederalpurposes #X" preemptsstateauthoritytodeterminewhetherthatwaterwayisnavigableinthelegalsensewithstate $D # lawconsequencestoownershipinterests.Becausethisissuepresentsaquestionoflaw,wereview %0!$ thetrialcourtsdecisiondenovo.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d). &"%   WebeginbyexaminingtheCorpsofEngineersownstatementoftheauthorityandeffect Y(#' ofthePublicNoticewhichisthebasisforthecitysmotionandthetrialcourtsdecision.That E)$( noticeprovided,inpertinentpart: 1*%)   +&* 8  TheCorpsofEngineers,underdelegatedauthorityfromtheSecretaryoftheArmy, e  isresponsiblefortheprotectionandpreservationofallwatersoftheUnitedStates Q includingnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStates....Theterm navigablewatersof = theUnitedStatesisdefinedasthosewaterswhicharepresentlyused,orhavebeen ) usedinthepast,ormaybesusceptibleforusetotransportinterstateorforeign  commerce.      ThedefinitionusedbytheCorpsisthatcontainedin33_C.F.R._Ԁ329.4(2001),partofthe  t RiversandHarborsActof1899.TheauthorityoftheCorpsofEngineersovernavigablewatersof  ` theUnitedStatesisgroundedinthatAct,33U.S.C.401etseq.TheActwasoriginallypassed  L  toprotectinterstatecommerceinnavigablewaters,anditisthebasiclegislationforcontrollingwork  8  andactivitiesinnavigablewatersoftheUnitedStates.UndertheAct,theChiefofEngineersand $  theSecretaryoftheArmymustapproveallplansandspecificationsfortheplacementofstructures u  andotherworksinthewaterwayswhichfitthelegislativedefinitionof navigablewatersofthe a  UnitedStates.33U.S.C.401(2001);33_C.F.R._Ԁ329.4(2001)(statingthedefinitionof M  navigablewaters).Obstructionoralterationofsuchwatersisprohibitedwithoutapermitfromthe 9  CorpsofEngineers.33U.S.C.401(2001). %   FederallawgivestheCorpsofEngineersthepowertodeclarewaterwaysnavigableforthe  purposeoffurtheringitsmission,andthisdeclarationis bindinginregardtotheactivitiesofthe  CorpsofEngineers.33_C.F.R._329.9(2001).However, precisedefinitionsofnavigablewaters p oftheUntiedStatesornavigabilityareultimatelydependentonjudicialinterpretationandcannot \ bemadeconclusivelybyadministrativeagencies.33_C.F.R._Ԁ329.3(2001).SeeMiamiValley H ConservancyDist.v.Alexander,692F.2d447,451(6thCir.1982)(holdingthattheCorpsof 4 Engineers failedtoprovethat[portionsoftheMiami]Riveranditstributariesarenavigable);   UnitedStatesv._Harrell_,926F.2d1036,1039(11thCir.1991)(holdingthattheCorpsofEngineers q  incorrectlydeterminedthatLewisCreekwasanavigablewaterway).Theregulationsgoverningthe ] CorpsofEngineersmakethesamepointclearly: I 8  Although conclusivedeterminationsofnavigabilitycanbemadeonlybyfederal ! Courts ,thosemadebyfederalagenciesareneverthelessaccordedsubstantialweight   bythecourts.!   33_C.F.R._Ԁ329.14(emphasisadded). "t!   BecauseadeterminationbytheCorpsofEngineersthataparticularwaterwayisa navigable $L # wateroftheUnitedStatesisnotbindingonafederalcourtcalledupontomakethatlegaldecision, %8!$ suchagencydeterminationcannotbebindingonTennesseecourtsonthequestionofwhethera &$"% waterwayisnavigableinthelegalsense,understatelaw,soastoaffectownershiprights.Forthat u'#& reason,wedisagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthattheagencyspublicnoticeprecludesjudicial a(#' determinationofnavigability.WhilesuchadeterminationbytheCorpsmaybeaccordedsubstantial M)$( weight,LandownerisentitledtointroducecontraryproofandtoquestiontheCorpsdetermination 9*%) andtheproceduresusedtoreachit.MiamiValleyConservancyDist.,692F.2dat44950;_Harrell_, %+&* 926F.2dat104344(theletterfromtheCorpsofEngineers fallfarshortofadeterminationof ,'+ navigabilityrequiredby33_C.F.R._Ԁ329.14andwasnotentitledtosubstantialweight,citingthe e proceduresrequiredby33_C.F.R._Ԁ_329.14(b)).___ Q   Therecordbeforeusdoesnotincludeanyreferencetoafederalcourtdeterminationthatthe ) WestForkoftheStonesRiverisanavigablewateroftheUnitedStates.Wearenotconvinced,  however,thatadeterminationofnavigabilityforfederalregulatorypurposesequatestoafindingof   navigabilitytostatelawpurposes.ThroughthecommerceclauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,   Congresshasauthoritytolegislatewithrespecttonavigablewaterstotheextentcommerceis  t concerned.UnitedStatesv.Chicago,M.,St.P.&P.R.Co.,312U.S.592,595,61S.Ct.772,775  ` (1941);seealsoStatev.MunciePulpCo.,104_S.W._Ԁ437,449(Tenn.1907).Thefederal  L  governmenthasparamountordominantcontrolovernavigablewatersusedininterstatecommerce  8  forpurposesofandtotheextentnecessarytoprotectinterstatecommerce.U.S.v._Rands_,389U.S. $  121,123,88S.Ct.265,226(1967);Dayv.Armstrong,362P.2d137,143(Wyo.1961).That u  control,however,involvesuseofthewaterway,notownershipofthesoilbeneathit. Thispower a  toregulatenavigationconfersupontheUnitedStatesadominantservitude._Rands_,389U.S.at M  123,88S.Ct.at267.TheRiversandHarborsActhasnoeffectonorapplicationtoquestionsof 9  ownershipofthelandunderthewaterway. % 8  8`   Theownershipofthebedandbanksofnavigablewaterswithina  stateordinarilyisgovernedbystatelaw,subjecttotheparamount  poweroftheUnitedStatestoensurethatsuchwatersremainfreefor p interstateandforeigncommerce.Theownershipofsuchlands,as \ betweenthestateandriparianowners,isdeterminedaccordingtothe H locallawofthestateinwhichtheyaresituated.4` x` x 65_C.J.S._ԀNavigableWaters106,at183(2000).NavigablewatersoftheUnitedStatesarepublic,W #  7       q  andtheirusecannotbeinterferedwithbythestateortheriparianowners.Thefederalgovernments ] paramountcontroloversuchwatersisdefinedbythecommerceclause.Chicago,M.,St.P.&P.R. I Co.,312U.S.at59596,61S.Ct.at775.However,otherthanonlandsownedbytheUnitedStates, 5 titleofnavigablewaters,andthesoilbeneaththem,liesinthestates._Donnelly_Ԁv.UnitedStates,228 ! U.S.243,260,33S.Ct.449,454(1913).Consequently,astatemaydecidetheownershipof e submergedlands,irrespectiveofanyfederaldeterminationofthenavigableor_nonnavigable_ Q characterofthewatersabovethem.Day,362P.2dat141. = 8  8`   Whether,underlocallaw,thetitletothebedofthestreamisretained  bytheStateorthetitleoftheriparianownerextendstothethreadof   thestream,or,asinthiscase,tolowwatermark,therightsofthetitle   holderaresubordinatetothedominantpowerofthefederal  t government inrespectofnavigation . `` x` x Chicago,M.,St.P.&P.R.Co.,312USat596,61S.Ct.at775(emphasisadded).Inmakinga  <  determinationofownership,thestatemayapplyitsrulesregardingownershipofsubmergedlands. (  _Donnelly_,228U.S.at260,33S.Ct.at454.InTennessee,thatdeterminationisfactbased. y    Therefore,weconcludethatthequestionwhethertheWestForkoftheStonesRiverisa Q  navigablewateroftheUnitedStatesdoesnotnecessarilydeterminetheownership,asamatterof =  law,oftheriverbed._b #  8      _ԀNonetheless,werecognizetheinherentrationalityofthetrialcourts ) observationsregardingtherelationshipbetweennavigabilityforfederallawpurposesand  navigabilityforstatelawpurposes.Weinterpretthetrialcourtsstatementsasarecognitionthata  waterwaywhichmeetsthedefinitionof navigablewatersoftheUnitedStateswillalsobe  navigableunderTennesseesdefinition.Thedefinitionof navigablewaterwayoftheUnitedStates t hasbeenconsideredofteninfederalcourts,andcanbesummarizedasfollows: ` 8  Thetestofnavigabilityhasbeenstatedandrestatedbythefederalcourtsforthelast 8 onehundredyears.Navigabilityhasbeendefinedincountlesswaysbutitsessential $ elementshaveremainedconstant.TheDistrictCourthereproperlyidentifiedthese u elements:AnavigablewaterwayoftheUnitedStatesmust(1)beorhavebeen(2) a usedorsusceptibleofuse(3)inthecustomarymodesoftradeandtravelonwater(4) M asahighwayforinterstatecommerce.9   MiamiValleyConservancyDist.,692F.2dat450.   Ї  Thus,thereislogictotheassumptionthatawaterwaywhichisusedorusablefortravelin e interstatecommercewouldalsobenavigableforpurposesofcommercewithinthestate.Wedonot Q disagreewiththetrialcourtsassessmentofthepracticalityofafactualdeterminationthattheWest = ForkoftheStonesRiverisanavigablewaterwayoftheUnitedStates.However,thereisnoproof ) intherecordbeforeusregardingthenavigabilityoftheriveratall,exceptforthePublicNotice  issuedbytheCorpsofEngineers.     Accordingly,wereversethetrialcourtsorderfindingthattheWestForkoftheStonesRiver  t isnavigableand,thus,itsriverbedisnotsubjecttoprivateownership.Thedeterminationof  ` navigabilityisstillanissueforthetrieroffactbaseduponevidencerelevanttothatdetermination.  L    However,weagreewiththecitythatiftheWestForkoftheStonesRiverisdeterminedto $  benavigable,Landownerisnotentitledtocompensationforthatportionofthecondemnedland u  beyondthelowwatermark,becausetherecanbenoprivateownershiprightsintheriverbed. a  8  Inthisstateithaslongbeenestablishedthatgrantsoflandlyinguponnavigable 9  streamsextendtotheordinarylowwatermarkonly,andthatthetitletothebedof % suchstreamsremainsinthestate....Ifawatercoursebenavigableinthelegal  sense,thesoilcoveredbythewater,aswellastheuseofthestream,notonlybelongs  tothepublicbutisnotsubjecttoentryorgrantasotherland.   Cunningham,28Tenn.App.at651,192S.W.2dat341(citationsomitted).Thus,anydeedto \ Landownerwhichpurportedtoincludelandundertheriver,ifthatriverisdeterminedtobe H navigable,mustbereadasconveyingonlythatpropertyextendingtothelowwatermark. 4   Landownerhasarguedthat,evenifaportionofthecondemnedlandliesunderanavigable q  stream,thecitycannotavoidpayingforthatportionbecausethecityhasalreadycondemnedthe ] propertyandcannot uncondemnthatportion.Landownerismistakenitsinterpretationofthe I consequenceofadeterminationthattheriverisnavigable.Ifthatisthecase,thedisputedportion 5 oflandundertheriverbedbelongstotheState,tobeheldintrustforthepublic.Suchpubliclyheld ! propertyisnotsubjecttocondemnationbyamunicipality.Therefore,iftheStonesRiveris   navigable,anyattemptbythecitytocondemnthelandbelongingtothestatewasanullity.Thecity   isnot uncondemingtheproperty;rather,thepropertywasneveractuallycondemned. !    Weremandtheissueofwhethertheriverisnavigable,inthelegalsense,forevidenceonthat #X" issueand,consequently,adetermination,ifitbecomesnecessary,regardingwhetheraportion,and $D # whatportion,ofLandownerspropertycondemnedbythecityisincapableofprivateownership %0!$ becausetheriverisanavigablewaterway.d #  9      ׀ &"%   m'#&   Insummary,weaffirmthetrialcourtsrulingontheadmissibilityofthetestimonyof e  Landownersappraiserregardingthevalueofthecondemnedproperty.Wereversethetrialcourts Q holdingthatLandownerisprecludedfromclaimingownershipoflandundertheriverandremand = forahearingonthatissue.CostsaretaxedtotheCityofMurfreesboro. )    `     h   __________________________________________  t    `     h   PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE