United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co.

Background

The federal government sued a Washington corporation that built a log boom across the Nooksack River, seeking an injunction and removal of the structure as an obstruction to navigation. The boom crossed the river channel near its mouth, often blocking steamboats and other craft, and could only be opened through a narrow “trip” that was frequently choked with logs. The company relied on a Washington statute authorizing boom companies, and lower federal courts upheld the company’s claim of state authorization.

Reasoning

The question was whether the boom was “affirmatively authorized by law” under the 1890 river and harbor act. The Court held that the phrase can include a state law enacted before Congress acted, so a state-authorized structure might be permitted. But the Court examined the Washington statute and found it required booms to allow free passage between a boom and the opposite shore. This boom crossed the channel and did not provide the required free passage, so it did not comply with the state law and therefore was not legally authorized under the federal statute. The Court reversed the lower courts’ judgments and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with that conclusion.

Real world impact

The decision lets federal officials seek removal of river obstructions that are not actually authorized by law, even when a state statute appears to allow such structures. It affects companies operating log booms, boat operators, and others who rely on safe river channels. The Court noted Congress can assert broader control over navigation and that questions about compensation for takings were not decided here.