33 U.S.C. § 409

Obstruction of navigable waters by vessels; floating timber; marking and removal of sunken vessels

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall not be lawful to tie up or anchor vessels or other craft in navigable channels in such a manner as to prevent or obstruct the passage of other vessels or craft; or to sink, or permit or cause to be sunk, vessels or other craft in navigable channels; or to float loose timber and logs, or to float what is known as “sack rafts of timber and logs” in streams or channels actually navigated by steamboats in such manner as to obstruct, impede, or endanger navigation. And whenever a vessel, raft or other craft is wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel, it shall be the duty of the owner, lessee, or operator of such sunken craft to immediately mark it with a buoy or beacon during the day and, unless otherwise granted a waiver by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, a light at night, and to maintain such marks until the sunken craft is removed or abandoned, and the neglect or failure of the said owner, lessee, or operator so to do shall be unlawful; and it shall be the duty of the owner, lessee, or operator of such sunken craft to commence the immediate removal of the same, and prosecute such removal diligently, and failure to do so shall be considered as an abandonment of such craft, and subject the same to removal by the United States as provided for in sections 411 to 416, 418, and 502 of this title. The Commandant of the Coast Guard may waive the requirement to mark a wrecked vessel, raft, or other craft with a light at night if the Commandant determines that placing a light would be impractical and granting such a waiver would not create an undue hazard to navigation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 240 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: S. Scrap Material Co. v. Abc Ins., 541 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

S. Scrap Material Co. v. Abc Ins., 541 F.3d 584 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “3 Thereafter, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 409 , the Corps demanded payment for its removal costs, which it estimated to be about $8,000,000, from Southern Scrap, as the owner and/or operator of the drydock that impeded navigation in the Industrial Canal.”

Port of South Louisiana v. Tri-Par. Indus., Inc., 927 F. Supp. 2d 332 (E.D. La. 2013). · cites it 5× “They also move for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs claim under La.”

Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979). · cites it 2× “191, 200-202 ( 33 U. S. C. § 409 : "It shall not be lawful [to obstruct navigable waterways]"); United States v.”

Wyandotte Transp. Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191 (1967). · cites it 6× “[5] We agree that § 15 of the Rivers and *197 Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U. S. C. § 409 , read in light of our decision in United States v.”

Walter Douglas Nunley v. M/v Dauntless Colocotronis, United States of Am. & Combi Lines v. Point Landing, Inc., 727 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 7× “33 U.S.C. § 409 . The district court found that the Wreck Act made the failure to mark or remove the wreck the sole proximate cause of a subsequent collision with the sunken vessel as a matter of law and dismissed the claims against the upriver defendants.”

Complaint of the Univ. of Texas Med. Branch at Galveston the Univ. of Texas Med. Branch at Galveston v. United States, 557 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1977). · cites it 4× “” 8 Section 12 of the 1899 Act both provides the criminal penalty for a violation of § 10 and authorizes the United States to enforce by injunction “the removal of any structures” erected in violation of § 10.”

Cont'l Oil Co. v. Bonanza Corp., & Repub. Ins. Co., 706 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “§ 411 (1976) provides criminal penalties for the owner of a sunken vessel who violates 33 U.S.C. § 409 (1976), which makes unlawful voluntary or careless sinking of vessels in navigable channels, and requires their removal.”

Carlos Romero-Barcelo, Etc. v. Harold Brown, 643 F.2d 835 (1st Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “Killen in the Bahia Salinas del Sur violated Section 15 of the same act, 33 U.S.C. § 409 . The district court ruled that neither § 13 nor § 15 give rise to a private cause of action for injunctive relief, 478 F.”

United States v. City of Redwood City, California & Albert v. Pinotti, Individually & Dba the People's Police Patrol, 640 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “Sections 15, 16, and 19, of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 409 , 411, 412, and 414 are commonly known as the Wreck Removal Act.”

John W. Mecom, Cross-Appellant v. Levingston Shipbuilding Co., Cross-Appellee, 622 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “The letter demanded that plaintiff remove or salvage the barge as required by the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 409 , 1 and advised that the government would take action to remove it in the event Mecom failed to act.”

United States v. Nassau Marine Corp., Cent. Marine Serv. & Canal Barge Co., 778 F.2d 1111 (5th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “33 U.S.C. § 409 , for negligently causing the barge to sink, and granted the injunction.”

Williamson Leasing Co. v. Am. Com. Lines, Inc., 616 F. Supp. 1330 (E.D. La. 1985). · cites it 5× “(5) The M/V SHELLY MOTT violated the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 409 , in that she was moored in a fashion which resulted in a protrusion into a navigable channel in such a manner as to obstruct the passage of other vessels.”

Show all 240 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.