ELR Citation: ELR 21046
No(s). 93-1784 (1st Cir. Feb 14, 1994)

The court affirms a district court decision that four houseboats moored in La Parguera Bay, Puerto Rico, are "structures" subject to the permitting requirements of §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and affirms the district court's decision upholding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps') denial of after-the-fact permits to the houseboats. The court first upholds the district court's finding that the houseboats were of dubious seaworthiness. The Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources' determination that the houseboats were navigable is not entitled to decretory significance with regard to the Corps' permitting process. The district court did not err in electing to credit the opinion of a Corps official familiar with both Corps regulations and the vessels at issue, even though the official lacked specialized nautical training. Also, the district court drew on testimony from a court-appointed expert, whose qualifications have not been assailed, and on photographs and other documentary evidence. The court next holds that the Corps was entitled to consider motive and consequences in its permitting decision. Neither the statute nor the regulations place restrictions on the Corps' discretion to issue permits. The court holds that the district court's findings as to the defendant's motives are supported by the record. The district court spotted a pattern of deceit: The houseboats were put in place to circumvent the ban on stilthouses, they were primarily intended to serve as vacation homes, the gadgets attached to them were meant to camouflage the scheme rather than for seafaring, and the occasional jaunts about the bay represented perfunctory attempts to satisfy the terms of the statute. The court also holds that Corps ecological concerns are rationally related to the goals of the Act. Finally, the court notes that the finding that the houseboats constitute structures" is not necessary to the ultimate determination that the houseboats constitute "obstructions." Section 10's permitting requirements may be triggered by something other than those items enumerated in the second clause of the section, if that "something" plausibly can be deemed an obstruction to navigation.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Silvia Carreno Coll, Ass't U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
452 Federico Degetau Federal Bldg.
Hato Rey PR 00918
(809) 766-5656

Counsel for Defendants
Jose Colon Santana
Vick Ctr., Ste.302-A, Rio Pidanese PR 00918
(809) 763-4111

Before SELYA, Circuit Judge, BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge, and CYR, Circuit Judge.