Navigability

Last updated
Navigation markers, entrance of Fremantle harbour and the Swan River, Western Australia Navigation markers gnangarra.jpg
Navigation markers, entrance of Fremantle harbour and the Swan River, Western Australia

A body of water, such as a river, canal or lake, is navigable if it is deep, wide and calm enough for a water vessel (e.g. boats) to pass safely. Navigability is also referred to in the broader context of a body of water having sufficient under keel clearance for a vessel. [1]

Contents

Such a navigable water is called a waterway , and is preferably with few obstructions against direct traverse that need avoiding, such as rocks, reefs or trees. Bridges built over waterways must have sufficient clearance. High flow speed may make a channel unnavigable due to risk of ship collisions. Waters may be unnavigable because of ice, particularly in winter or high-latitude regions. Navigability also depends on context: a small river may be navigable by smaller craft such as a motorboat or a kayak, but unnavigable by a larger freighter or cruise ship. Shallow rivers may be made navigable by the installation of locks that regulate flow and increase upstream water level, or by dredging that deepens parts of the stream bed.

Inland water transport systems

Inland Water Transport (IWT) Systems have been used for centuries in countries including India, China, Egypt, the Netherlands, the United States, Germany, and Bangladesh. In the Netherlands, IWT handles 46% of the nation's inland freight; 32% in Bangladesh, 14% in the United States, and 9% in China.

In the United States

Inland Waterway Connection Inland waterway.png
Inland Waterway Connection
Sunset on the Intracoastal Waterway HobeSoundFlorida-sunset.jpg
Sunset on the Intracoastal Waterway

What constitutes 'navigable' waters can not be separated from the context in which the question is asked. Numerous federal agencies define jurisdiction based on navigable waters, including admiralty jurisdiction, pollution control, to the licensing of dams, and even property boundaries. The numerous definitions and jurisdictional statutes have created an array of case law specific to which context the question of navigability arises. Some of the most commonly discussed definitions are listed here.

Navigable waters, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as codified under 33 CFR 329, are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and those inland waters that are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce while the waterway is in its ordinary condition at the time of statehood. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), approved 3 March 1899, prohibits the unauthorized obstruction of a navigable water of the U.S. This statute also requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any construction in or over any navigable water, or the excavation or discharge of material into such water, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters. However, the ACOE recognizes that only the judiciary can make a definitive ruling as to which are navigable waters.33 CFR 329

For the purposes of transferring property title into public property, the definition of a Navigable waterways closely follows 33 CFR 329. For the purpose of establishing which river is public and therefore state-owned, what is navigable is a constitutional question defined by Federal case law. (See PPL Montana v Montana (2012).) If a river was considered navigable at the time of statehood, the land below the navigable water was conveyed to the state as part of the transportation network in order to facilitate commerce. Most states retained title to these navigable rivers in trust for the public. Some states divested themselves of title to the land below navigable rivers, but a federal navigable servitude remains if the river is a navigable waterway. Title to the lands submerged by smaller streams are considered part of the property through which the water flows and there is no 'public right' to enter upon private property based on the mere presence of water.

The scope of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authority was granted under the Federal Power Act, 1941 (16 U.S.C 791). Such authority is based on congressional authority to regulate commerce; it is not based exclusively on title to the riverbed [16 U.S.C. 796(8)] or even navigability. Therefore, FERC's permitting authority extends to the flow from non-navigable tributaries in order to protect commerce downstream, [US v. Rio Grande Irrigation, 174 U.S. 690, 708 (1899)], [Oklahoma v. Atkinson, 313 US 508, 525].

Also, the Clean Water Act has introduced the terms "traditional navigable waters," and "waters of the United States" to define the scope of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Here, "Waters of the United States" include not only navigable waters, but also tributaries of navigable waters and nearby wetlands with "a significant nexus to navigable waters"; both are covered under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Clean Water Act establishes Federal jurisdiction beyond "navigable waters" extending a more limited federal jurisdiction under the Act over private property which may at times be submerged by waters. Because jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act extends beyond public property, the broader definitions of "traditional navigable" and "significant nexus" used to establish the scope of authority under the Act are still ambiguously defined and therefore open to judicial interpretation as indicated in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Carabell v. United States and Rapanos v. United States . [2] However, because authority under the Act is limited to protecting only navigable waters, jurisdiction over these smaller creeks is not absolute and may require just compensation to property owners when invoked to protect downstream waters.

Finally, a water-body is presumed non-navigable with the burden of proof on the party claiming it is navigable. The U.S. Forest Service considers a waterbody not navigable until is adjudicated otherwise. see Whitewater v. Tidwell 770 F. 3d 1108 (2014). Therefore, and public rights associated with navigability cannot be presumed to exist without a finding of navigability.

Confusion over "navigability"

'Navigability' is a legal term of art, which can lead to considerable confusion. In 2009, journalist Phil Brown of Adirondack Explorer defied private property postings to make a direct transit of Mud Pond by canoe, within a tract of private property surrounded by public land within the Adirondack Park. In New York State, waterways that are 'navigable-in-fact' are considered public highways, meaning that they are subject to an easement for public travel, even if they are on private land. [3] Brown argued that because he recreationally 'navigated' the waterway through private property, it was therefore a public highway. He prevailed in the trial court when sued for trespassing by the owners of the property, a decision upheld [4] by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. The land was found "subject to a public right of navigation, including the right to portage on plaintiff's land where absolutely necessary for the limited purpose of avoiding obstacles to navigation such as the Mud Pond rapids." [5] However, New York's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decisions, and sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of "the Waterway's historical and prospective commercial utility, the Waterway's historical accessibility to the public, the relative ease of passage by canoe, the volume of historical travel, and the volume of prospective commercial and recreational use." [6] The decision by New York's highest court established that recreational 'navigability' alone is not sufficient to prove that a waterway is a public highway in New York State. The US Supreme Court had also found that use of modern water craft insufficient evidence to support a finding of navigability [7]

Examples

Inland water transport system in India

In India there are currently three National Waterways totaling a distance of 2921 km. They are:

It is estimated that the total navigable length of inland waterways is 14500 km. A total of 16 million tonnes of freight is moved by this mode of transport.

Advantages of inland water transport systems

Port of Bratislava (Slovakia) at night Bratislava Main Port.jpg
Port of Bratislava (Slovakia) at night
Port of Kuopio on the shore of Lake Kallavesi in 2005 Port of Kuopio.png
Port of Kuopio on the shore of Lake Kallavesi in 2005

Waterways provide enormous advantages as a mode of transport compared to land and air modes of transports.

Disadvantages of inland water transport systems

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">River Avon, Warwickshire</span> River in central England

The River Avon in central England flows generally southwestwards and is a major left-bank and easternmost tributary of the River Severn. It is also known as the Warwickshire Avon or Shakespeare's Avon, to distinguish it from several other rivers of the same name in the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waterway</span> Any navigable body of water

A waterway is any navigable body of water. Broad distinctions are useful to avoid ambiguity, and disambiguation will be of varying importance depending on the nuance of the equivalent word in other ways. A first distinction is necessary between maritime shipping routes and waterways used by inland water craft. Maritime shipping routes cross oceans and seas, and some lakes, where navigability is assumed, and no engineering is required, except to provide the draft for deep-sea shipping to approach seaports (channels), or to provide a short cut across an isthmus; this is the function of ship canals. Dredged channels in the sea are not usually described as waterways. There is an exception to this initial distinction, essentially for legal purposes, see under international waters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water resources law</span> Law and regulations that relate to water resources

Water resources law is the field of law dealing with the ownership, control, and use of water as a resource. It is most closely related to property law, and is distinct from laws governing water quality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Act</span> 1972 U.S. federal law regulating water pollution

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; recognizing the responsibilities of the states in addressing pollution and providing assistance to states to do so, including funding for publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

Riparian water rights is a system for allocating water among those who possess land along its path. It has its origins in English common law. Riparian water rights exist in many jurisdictions with a common law heritage, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and states in the eastern United States.

Water right in water law is the right of a user to use water from a water source, e.g., a river, stream, pond or source of groundwater. In areas with plentiful water and few users, such systems are generally not complicated or contentious. In other areas, especially arid areas where irrigation is practiced, such systems are often the source of conflict, both legal and physical. Some systems treat surface water and ground water in the same manner, while others use different principles for each.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Inland waterways of the United States</span>

The inland waterways of the United States include more than 25,000 mi (40,000 km) of navigable waters. Much of the commercially important waterways of the United States consist of the Mississippi River System—the Mississippi River and connecting waterways.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

Navigable servitude is a doctrine in United States constitutional law that gives the federal government the right to regulate navigable waterways as an extension of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. It is also sometimes called federal navigational servitude.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seine–Nord Europe Canal</span>

The Seine–Nord Europe Canal is a planned high-capacity canal in France that would link the Oise River at Compiègne with the Dunkirk-Scheldt Canal, east of Arleux. It is the French part of a proposed Seine-Scheldt canal that would ultimately connect the Rhine and Seine basins inland. The stated objective is to expand trade flows in a fuel-efficient and ecologically friendly manner between the Seine basin and Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, while reducing saturation on the A1 motorway in France and reducing the CO2 emissions in the transport sector within this corridor.

Rivers and Harbors Act may refer to one of many pieces of legislation and appropriations passed by the United States Congress since the first such legislation in 1824. At that time Congress appropriated $75,000 to improve navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers by removing sandbars, snags, and other obstacles. Like when first passed, the legislation was to be administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under its Chief Engineer and the Secretary of War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canal de l'Ourcq</span> Canal in northeastern France

The Canal de l'Ourcq is a 108.1 km (67.2 mi) long canal in the Île-de-France region with 10 locks. It was built at a width of 3.20 m (10.5 ft) but was enlarged to 3.7 m (12 ft), which permitted use by more pleasure boats. The canal begins at Port-aux-Perches near the village of Troesnes, where it splits from the channeled river Ourcq, and flows to the Bassin de la Villette, where it joins the Canal Saint-Martin. Paris requires 380,000 cubic metres of water daily for cleaning the sewer system, gutters, and parks. The Canal de l'Ourcq provides about half of the requirement. Since 1983, the waterway has been designated for use by pleasure craft, and its water is designated for non-drinking uses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Waterway 4</span> Long waterway in India

National Waterway 4 (NW-4) is a 1,095 kilometres (680 mi) long waterway in India. It has been declared as an Indian National Waterway and is currently under development. It connects the Indian states of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and the union territory of Puducherry. The NW-4 runs along the Coromandal Coast through Kakinada, Eluru, Commanur, Buckingham Canals and also through part of Krishna and Godavari rivers in South India. It was declared a National Waterway on 24 November 2008 under the Provisions of National Waterways Bill, 2006. It is being developed by the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), and was scheduled for completion by 2013. The National Waterways Act, 2016 has extended the length of NW-4 from 1,095 km (680 mi) to 2,890 km (1,800 mi) by connecting the Krishna and Godavari Rivers. The Project would be undertaken in 3 phases with first phase beginning in October, 2017 and to be completed by June, 2019

A Wasserstraßen- und Schifffahrtsamt is a German federal agency, responsible for the administration of federal navigable waters and for the regulation of vessel traffic.

<i>Canadian Navigable Waters Act</i> Law of Canada

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act is one of the oldest regulatory statutes enacted by the Parliament of Canada. It requires approval for any works that may affect navigation on navigable waters in Canada.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Water Rule</span> 2015 EPA regulation

The Clean Water Rule is a 2015 regulation published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to clarify water resource management in the United States under a provision of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands which have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The rule was published in response to concerns about lack of clarity over the act's scope from legislators at multiple levels, industry members, researchers and other science professionals, activists, and citizens.

<i>Adirondack League Club v. Sierra Club</i>

Adirondack League Club vs. Sierra Club was a court case decided on December 17, 1998, by New York's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment that the South Branch of the Moose River flowing through Adirondack League Club property was a public highway, but holding that recreational use can be considered in determining if a river is a public highway. The case was sent back to the trial court for additional review. However, the case was settled before there was a final court determination as to whether the river was a public highway. The settlement, which can be found under Appendix 12 of the Moose River Plains Wild Forest Unit Management Plan, allows the public to use the river at certain times of the year and under certain conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oil Pollution Act of 1924</span>

Oil Pollution Act of 1924 is a United States federal statute establishing regulations for coastal navigable waters with regards to intentional fossil fuel discharges from seagoing vessels. The Act of Congress grants the Secretary of War authority to evaluate the oil volume discharge from a vessel while assessing if coastal navigable waters have a potential toxicity posing a deleterious condition for human health and seafood contamination. The 1924 United States statute provides judicial penalties encompassing civil and criminal punishment for violations of the prescribed regulations as stated in the Act.

Water transport in India has played a significant role in the country's economy and is indispensable to foreign trade. India is endowed with an extensive network of waterways in the form of rivers, canals, backwaters, creeks and a long coastline accessible through the seas and oceans. It has the largest carrying capacity of any form of transport and is most suitable for carrying bulky goods over long distances.

References

  1. Gilardoni, Eduardo O.; Presedo, Juan P. (2017). Navigation in Shallow Waters. Livingston, Scotland: Witherby Publishing Group. ISBN   978-1-85609-667-6.
  2. USACE, Civil Works Regulatory Program – CWA Guidance to Implement the U.S. Supreme Court Decision for the Rapanos and Carabell Cases
  3. "Adirondack Club v. Sierra, 706 NE 2d 1192 – NY: Court of Appeals 1998".
  4. "Friends of Thayer Lake LLC et al. v Phil Brown" (PDF). State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department. 2015-01-15.
  5. Lisa W. Foderaro (2015-01-19). "Ruling Favors Public Use of Adirondacks' Private Waterways". The New York Times.
  6. "Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v. Brown, 27 NY 3d 1039 – NY: Court of Appeals 2016".
  7. Montana PPL v Montana US Supra (2013)