During the 19th and early 20th centuries, logs were frequently transported in rafts, and sometimes sank to the bottom of rivers. Aqua Log is a company that recovers sunken logs.
These consolidated appeals, Aqua Log v. Lost and Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs and Rafts of Logs. 11th Cir. Nos. 11-15060, 11-15076, 11-15078. Feb. 15, concerned wood found at the bottom of two Georgia waterways — the Flint River and a tributary called Spring Creek.
While a downriver section of the Flint is used for commercial navigation, parts of it and Spring Creek at issue in the appeals were not currently used in interstate commerce, though both parties in the suit agreed they could be used for transport, at least for part of the year.
Aqua Log, after recovering several logs, invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts and brought three in rem actions seeking salvage awards, or alternatively, an award of title to the logs based on the American law of finds.
The state of Georgia intervened and claimed ownership of the logs. Georgia moved for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Flint River and Spring Creek were not navigable.
The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Georgia. Specifically, the court held a waterway is only navigable for admiralty jurisdiction purposes when there is evidence of present or potential commercial activity on that waterway. It found no current or planned commercial activity on the sections of the rivers in question.
On appeal, Aqua Log contended the district court applied the wrong test, and asked the 11th Circuit to adopt a test defining navigable waters as those that are merely capable of being used for commercial purposes.
The appellate court said the primary focus of maritime law is to protect and encourage commercial maritime activity. It cited Finneseth v. Carter, 712 F.2d 1041, 1044 (6th Cir. 1983) where an appeals court said finding admiralty jurisdiction when a waterway is capable of supporting commercial activity creates a “climate conducive to commercial maritime activity.”
The 11th Circuit noted this meant “commercial activity could begin on such a waterway and immediately have uniform rules in place without having to determine whether commercial activity currently takes place on that waterway.”
The 11th Circuit said “predictability in the courts is valuable” and a test that requires evidence of actual or likely commercial activity fails to provide the predictability that encourages maritime commerce.
While the appeals court recognized there is a danger of potentially expanding admiralty jurisdiction into waterways that may never be used for commercial maritime activities, it said “the broad federal interests in protecting and promoting maritime commerce justify this potential encroachment.”
The 11th Circuit also said it was bound by Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co., 641 F.2d 314 (5th Cir. Apr. 1981), which held if a waterway is capable of being used in commerce, that’s a sufficient threshold to conclude it is navigable for admiralty-jurisdiction purposes.
Concluding the district court erred in finding the sections of the Flint River and Spring Creek not navigable, the 11th Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court.
