lift bridge

[nachoman]

Any waterway, capable of watercraft traffic, or used for watercraft traffic, is considered a "navigable waterway"

In Arizona the definition seems to go further - we tend to consider any waterway formerly capable of carrying watercraft traffic acceptable. This includes dammed or diverted streams that are now dry. We have creeks barely deep enough for a canoe navigable, but irrigation canals arent. It is actually a legal pain in the rear end here in Arizona - the type of stuff I worked on when I worked for the state:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.azstreambeds.com/">http://www.azstreambeds.com/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.yumasun.com/news/salt-60432-arizona-claim.html">http://www.yumasun.com/news/salt-60432- ... claim.html</a><!-- m -->

These types of legal definitions eat up plenty of time and resources. Unfortunately, my state has fewer resources and competent people to deal with these issues now . My guess is the railroad bridge was built after the canal business was mostly done, but they were required by law to allow for passage of canal boats. The thing may have only been raised once a month or less. For recreational canoers, it would have been easier to just portage rather than lift the bridge. Any serious business on a canal that small would have been replaced by other transport.