Land-based decisions in the takings context mandate permit compliance as a threshold for a plaintiff to have a compensable property interest. For the exact same issue under the general maritime law, should the plaintiff claiming damage to a structure placed on navigable waters and which is subject to permit compliance under the Rivers and Harbors Act also have to show that its structure was permitted in order to maintain a compensable property interest in a maritime tort action?

2. Since Entergy maintained an unpermitted structure in navigable waters, should it have been subjected to a different comparative fault analysis than what was used by the lower courts, and should the standard have required this plaintiff to show that its structure could not have been the cause of the incident?

3. Does the discretionary right to award prejudgment interest in an admiralty proceeding extend so far as to allow the award of interest over the significant period of time when the money was not spent and during which time the plaintiff did not demonstrate any need to use the damaged property, and require the district court to evaluate "peculiar circumstances" and "undue delay?"

Whether a plaintiff claiming damage to a structure placed on navigable waters must show that its structure was permitted in order to maintain a compensable property interest in a maritime tort action