Different Definitions for different purposes
Peggie, there are different definitions depending on what we're talking about. That's why I posted. You are absolutely correct that navigable in the context of the acts you've been discussing requires interstate traffic. My comment was only to point out that if someone in another arena, then the different possible interpretations of navigable could result in very different results from different courts. Of course, that's always a risk. Imagine that you set off from the dock on a beautiful day, and an unforseen thunder-cell sinks hits your boat and you lose control and run into another boat. If you are in strictly state waters, you will be seriously liable. If you are in admiralty waters, however, you may be able to limit your liability to the value of your vessel. Kinda. Anyway, I'm tired but there are lots of ways to limit liability in admiralty that are not available in state courts, for the most part. To admirarlty, navigable means simply suitable for use by vessels. Court decisions have extended that defintion from its orginal useage, meaning tidal waters, to its current usages which more or less requires that the vessels be engaged in commercial use. The case in particular I was thinking of had to do with a ferry on a lake in I think Texas. Its late here and I don't have the citation handy, but I could look it up if anyone other than me is interested. The rational had to do with railroading and goes more or less like this - I don't necessarily agree with any of it. The gov't has the right to regulate interstate commerce. That includes the right to regulate interstate railroads. Then a case said that the gov't could regulate the use of a railroad that went interstate, even if the particular route being regulated didn't go across state lines. Then the Court said, ok, even if the railroad track doesn't connect outside state lines, we're still going to let the federal government regulate it because it might have an impact on interstate commerce. Remember, eventually the Court took this clause to prohibit the owner of a grill from refusing to serve people of color. Now I agree that people should be entitled to basic necessities regardless of the color of their skin, but using the commerce clause to get there is a stretch. So, we have the railroad history. We also have the constitutional grant of maritime jurisdiction to the district courts, sitting in admiralty. (Takes a few steps to get there, but hey I'm not writing a text book). So the Court expands the grant of admiralty jurisdiction from tidal waters to any navigable river going to the sea. Then the Admiralty Extension Act extends admiralty jurisdiction to the great lakes and rivers flowing to and from them. At this point essentially any river in the US is covered, as is any lake, as long as you can eventually get to either the great lakes or to the ocean. Then you get a series of conflicting cases to which I refer. Again, I'll do the research if anyone cares about it, but basically, the deal is that if the lake, river, whatever is wholly within a state, but have commercial traffic on it, the courts will probably extend admiralty jurisdiction to cover it. This is not yet black letter law, but its pretty strong authority. The logic is of course that it was ok to do this with railroads, so it must be ok here. For the most part, I think this is insane, although there are times as a commercial vessel owner you would rather be in admiralty court because of the limits on liability. Justin - O'day Owners' Web
)) Funny (or maybe I just have a warped sense of humor after 15 years in the marine potty biz) story: A couple of years ago, the legal beagles in the regional EPA office in Atlanta decided that "navigable" meant any body of water onto which there is ANY access for vessel traffic...even launch ramps. So I asked 'em why there'd be any need for "no discharge" regulations on a lake if there's no vessel access to it--no way any boat could be floated on it. That question stumped 'em. But it STILL took a legal opinion from EPA in Washington to get 'em to back down. Our tax dollars at work.