I would think the obvious imminent danger the town acted to prevent would be addressed by the maritime Law of Salvage.But then the city or county would be opening themselves to legal ramifications.
"A salvor only needs to show a vessel is in actual or imminent danger to establish the first element of a salvage claim. (The other two ingredients are "voluntariness" (meaning you didn't have some preexisting obligation to assist) and "success" (meaning you saved or contributed to saving the vessel).
https://www.saltwaterlaw.com/SaltWa...-Law-Of-Salvage-What-it-takes-to-make-a-.aspx
More from this website:
"The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (think the appellate court of the Southeast United States) just highlighted with canary yellow marker what entitles you to make a salvage claim. And by doing so, the court refastened the established elements of maritime salvage law."
This is about a case where a salvor was denied a salvage claim by the wrong law and the The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, on appeal, the correct law and, in so doing, clarified the conditions of salvage.
The article goes on to say, "... the Eleventh Circuit correctly ruled that "maritime peril" stands alone. That is, a salvor does NOT need to show that the salved vessel was a necessary element to the vessel's rescue. Instead, the salvor only has to show that the vessel was under a "maritime peril." Fire, groundings and flooding with seawater are pretty classic examples of maritime peril. After that jump shot, the Eleventh Circuit didn't just walk off the court. Instead, it went on to remind its audience that the public policy of salvage is to encourage mariners to come to the aid of vessels in distress and "to do so before it is a do-or-die wager with high risks." "
Buy that standard, the town need not fear legal or financial repercussions.
What I don't know, is what that says about a vessel that has already suffered the peril.
-Will (Dragonfly)