About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


40 Tul. Mar. L.J. 531 (2015-2016)
Progress Be Dammed: The Eighth Circuit Limits Sec. 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act to in Rem Recovery, Aggravating Crumbling Infrastructure on Inland Water Shipping Routes

handle is hein.journals/tulmar40 and id is 549 raw text is: Progress Be Dammed: The Eighth Circuit Limits § 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act to In Rem Recovery, Aggravating Crumbling Infrastructure on Inland Water Shipping Routes I. INTRODUCTION ............................ ..... 531 II. BACKGROUND ...................................... 532 A. The Supreme Court Finds an Implicit In Personam Cause ofAction for § 409 i Wyandotte ....... .....534 B. Circuit Courts Split on Applying Wyandotte Analysis to § 408 .................................534 1. The Sixth Circuit Applies Wyandotte to Find an In Personam Cause of Action For § 408 Violations .......... 534 2. The Fifth and Tenth Circuits Decline to Extend the WyandotteAnalysis to § 408 Claims ....... .......534 3. The Eighth Circuit Declines to Rule on Whether an In Personam Cause of Action Exists for § 408 ........ 536 III. THE COURT'S DECISION ............................... 536 IV. ANALYSIS ............. ........................ ...... 539 V. CONCLUSION .......................................... 542 I. INTRODUCTION The M/V JULIE WHITE was towing four rock-laden barges on the Mississippi River when they broke loose and drifted downstream towards a dam.' All four barges allided with lock and dam structures owned by the United States government and sank immediately upstream of the dam gates.2 The lock and dam sustained damages and the United States government submitted a written claim to the towboat owner, the American River Transport Company (ARTCO).' ARTCO immediately filed a claim seeking to limit its liability to the value of the tow and pending freight in the amount of $1.3 million.! Pursuant to Supplemental Rule F of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court enjoined the government from filing any separate suits against ARTCO relating to the same cause of action.! The 1. In r Am. River Transp. Co. (ARTCO I), 728 F.3d 839, 840, 2014 AMC 480, 481 (8th Cir. 2013). 2. Id 3. In reAm. River Transp. Co. (ARTCO11), 800 E3d 428,432 (8th Cir. 2015). 4. ARTCO1 728 E3d at 840,2014 AMC at 481. 5. ARTCOIJ 800 E3d at 432. 531