Background

• These in rem actions concern submerged logs located at the bottom of the Flint River and Spring Creek, waterways in Georgia that can transport commercial vessels in present state for part of the year.
• Aqua Log seeks salvage awards or title to logs; Georgia intervenes claiming lack of federal admiralty subject-matter jurisdiction because waterways are not navigable for admiralty purposes.
• District court granted summary judgment for Georgia, holding navigability requires present or planned commercial activity on the waterways.
• Aqua Log appeals, arguing navigability turns on capacity to support commercial activity, not current activity.
• The issue is whether the Flint River and Spring Creek are navigable for admiralty purposes, and thus whether the district court had jurisdiction.
• The court ultimately finds the waterways are navigable because they are capable of supporting commercial activity, reversing and remanding.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co., 641 F.2d 314 (5th Cir. 1981) (navigability entails present capability to sustain commerce; nexus and location considerations)
• Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982) (supreme-court articulation of admiralty jurisdiction and navigability concepts)
• Ex parte Garnett, 141 U.S. 1 (1891) (principle that admiralty jurisdiction extends to navigable waters)
• Livingston v. United States, 627 F.2d 165 (8th Cir. 1980) (capitalizes on capability to support commercial activity in navigability analysis)
• Chapman v. United States, 575 F.2d 147 (7th Cir. 1978) (navigability tied to present susceptibility to commercial use)
• Adams v. Montana Power Co., 528 F.2d 437 (9th Cir. 1975) (navigable waterway defined by capacity to support commerce)
• Finneseth v. Carter, 712 F.2d 1041 (6th Cir. 1983) (purpose of navigability to promote maritime commerce)
• Price v. Price, 929 F.2d 131 (4th Cir. 1991) (tests for navigability centered on capability to support commercial activity)
• LeBlanc v. Cleveland, 198 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1999) (focus on present or future ability of waterway for interstate commercial trade)
• Cunningham v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 377 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2004) (reaffirms navigability as present capability to sustain commerce)
• Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) (maritime-commerce focused rationale for jurisdiction)
• Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) (uniform application of substantive maritime law with admiralty jurisdiction)