United States v. California

v. UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA. 5, Original. Argued No. 7-8, December 1964. May 17,

Decided Solicitor General Cox the cause for the United argued Poliak, J. Stephen States. him on were With the briefs George S. Green. Swarth and Martin Keatinge, H.

Richard Attorney Gen- Special Assistant eral of California, argued cause for defendant. With Lynch, briefs were Thomas C. him Attorney Gen- Mosk, Stanley eral, Charles Attorney General, former E. Corker, Shavelson, Howard S. Goldin Jay L. and Assistant Attorneys General, and Warren J. Abbott and N. Taylor, Gregory Deputy Attorneys General.

George Hayes, N. Special Attorney Assistant General of Alaska, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the State of Alaska, as amicus curiae. With him on the Colver, were Warren C. brief Attorney General, and Avrum Gross, M. Special Attorney Assistant General.

John Ogden B. filed briefs for Carl amicus Whitson, curiae. opinion delivered Harlan

MR. Justice Court. extent to determine us requires case

The present of California the State granted particular and in 1953,1 ofAct Submerged Lands on the California water bodies specified whether declare Act. meaning of that within the waters” “inland coast are necessary place is background amount A substantial perspective. the issues

I. op Setting the Case. 1945, brought by the begun is a suit This over the dominion to determine against rights the three-mile mineral under submerged lands and In Court off the coast of belt of sea California. decreed: has now, and of America United States

“The possessed para- pertinent hereto, at all times been over, power and rights full dominion in, mount underlying the things lands, minerals other ordinary low- lying seaward Pacific Ocean outside of California, mark on water the coast nautical extending seaward three waters, no title of California has miles .... The State interest therein.” United States or property thereto and Decree. 804, 805, v. S. Order California, U. decree, asked entry After States this United in greater detail that the lands awarded to be defined was oil well activ- certain areas where there substantial lay within inland California asserted ity, and which Special Master,2 and appointed The waters. Court segments to specified directed him consider seven (1958 ed.). 29, 43 1 67 Stat. U. S. C. 1301-1315 §§ City. The late H. Davis of New York William ordinary California coast3 to low determine line water seg- and the outer limit of inland waters. These ments bays, and, problem evolved, included as the various consisting the so-called “overall of the waters unit area” encompassing inside a line off the shore of the islands California, southern far some as as 50 miles out.4 The Special Report, generally favoring position Master’s States, United with filed this Court Novem- ber adopted U. S. 872. He as his criteria for defining inland applied by waters those segments were as follows: Conception

1. From Point Hueneme; to Point Bay; 2. San Pedro extremity

3. From Bay the southern of San Pedro to the western Newport Bay; headland at City Bay;

4. Crescent Monterey Bay;

5. Obispo Bay; San Luis Bay.

7. Santa Monica Special We directed the Master to recommend answers to the follow- ing questions: “Question (inland open sea) 1.—What is the status waters

particular channels and other water areas between the mainland and islands, and, waters, offshore if then what criteria are the inland water limits of such channel or other water area to be determined ? “Question particular segments bays É.—Are in fact or harbors con-

stituting inland waters and from what landmarks are the lines mark- ing bays, harbors, seaward limits of rivers, and other inland waters be drawn ? “Question By ordinary what criteria is the low water mark on S.—

the coast of California to be ascertained?” 342 TJ. S. 891. 4 California’s claim to the “overall unit area” runs from Point Conception (21 water), Richardson Rock miles across to San Miguel Island, Island, Island; Santa Rosa Begg Gull thence to (35.8 miles), Rock Island, to San Nicolas to San Clemente Island (43 miles); thence back to (56.8 miles). the mainland at Point Loma San Nicolas and San Clemente Islands are over 50 miles from shore. Map Appendix See attached as dissenting opinion, post, C to the at 178. of the as of the date foreign of affairs conduct the a rule particular, 27, 1947—in decree, October its mouth across only bay having closing a a line enclosing a suffi- length miles in

no more than 10 Boggs formula5 satisfy area to the so-called cient water bay a water, qualification inland with the would be water would historically considered inland had been exceptions their parties noted so Both continue.6 depth of sufficient a indentation is determine whether coastal To water, (1) Boggs would draw the shape formula to be inland the (2) a indentation; belt the draw closing line the mouth of across (similar marginal to a small the shore of the indentation around closing length the equal the of belt) having a width to one-fourth (3) compare remaining the entrance; area inside line across the equal having closing of a diameter line with the area a semicircle length closing line, area is and if the enclosed one-half of the of semicircle, is inland water. larger of indentation than that Sea, Territorial 24 Am. J. Int’l L. Boggs, Delimitation of the Special Master recommended as follows: The “Question the main- 1: channels other water areas between by within area referred to Cali- and the offshore islands land They lie are not waters. fornia as ‘over-all unit area’ waters, marginal belt territorial baseline of the seaward along the in each instance shore which should be measured having marginal island, adjoining its own belt. mainland each island “Question particular segments now S: No one of the seven coastal adjudication precise a determination and is under consideration bay constituting The landmarks from which lines inland waters. (the straight-line segments marking of the baseline the seaward limits harbors, belt) bays, marginal rivers and other inland waters drawn, are follows: to be are as

“Bays bay waters a a line ten seaward limit of inland

“The extreme having long. pronounced For headlands nautical miles indentations having depth apart, and as here- not more than ten nautical miles defined, straight entrance. line is be drawn across the inafter apart, more than ten nautical miles Where the headlands are point straight the indentation at the near- line is to drawn across ten nautical miles. est entrance at which the width does exceed depth follow- requisite In is to be determined either case the having ing envelope equal arcs circles a radius criterion: The all Report, taken, Congress but further action was before the Submerged enacted Lands Act. Submerged

The grants Lands Act7 to the States “title to and of the ownership navigable lands beneath waters length straight to one-fourth the of the line be drawn from shall points indentation; all around the of shore if the area enclosed straight envelope line across the of entrance and the the arcs greater of the equal circles is than that of a semicircle with diameter length to one-half entrance, of the line of across the the waters regarded waters; the indentation otherwise, shall be as if regarded open waters of the indentation shall be as sea. (Ports)

“Harbors “In front of harbors the outer limit of inland waters is to embrace anchorage reasonably an physical surroundings related to the requirements port, and, contrary evidence, service of the absent may be permanent assumed to be the line of the outermost harbor works.

“River Mouths empty sea,

“Where rivers into the the seaward limit of inland following general waters is a line direction of the coast drawn across the mouth of the river whatever its width. If the river flows estuary, applicable bays into an apply estuary. the rules to the “Landmarks pronounced

“Where tributary waterways, headlands exist at appropriate point plane landmark is the of intersection of the of ordinary low water with the outermost extension of the natural head- pronounced land. headland, Where there is no the landmark is the point of ordinary intersection of the mark low-water with a line bisecting angle general ordinary between the trend line of the low- along water open mark general coast and the trend line of the ordinary along waterway. tributary low-water mark the shore of the “Question ‘ordinary 8: The low-water mark on the coast Cali- (as fornia’ is the intersection with the shoreline it exists at the time survey) plane of the waters, of the mean of all low to be estab- lished, subject approval Court, by the United States Survey Coast & period Geodetic from observations made over a years.” Report Special (footnotes omitted). 18.6 2-5 Master Submerged provides part: Lands Act in relevant

“AN ACT “To confirm and establish the titles of the beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and to the natural re- (a). 3§ respective States.” the boundaries

within a State boundaries the seaward includes “Boundaries” member State became at the time such they “as existed Congress,” by the approved or as Union, heretofore to the limitation subject but ... the term ‘boundaries’ “in no event shall more line from the coast extending interpreted Ocean the Atlantic miles into than geographical three marine three Ocean, more than or the Pacific (b). 2§ of Mexico.” leagues into the Gulf waters, provide for the use and and to such lands sources within jurisdiction resources, to confirm the lands and control of said and the natural resources of the United States over and control of boundaries. State of the Continental Shelf seaward seabed Representatives by House “Be it the Senate and enacted of of may assembled, Congress That Act this States America in of ‘Submerged Act.’ be cited as the Lands I "TITLE “definition Act— used in this U. S. C. When “Sec. [43 1301]. § “(a) navigable means— beneath waters’ term ‘lands by permanently periodically covered tidal waters “(2) or all lands high to a line of tide and seaward up but above the line mean line each such geographical from the coast of three miles distant any boundary such where in case line of each State State and to the a member boundary at the time such State became such as existed approved by Congress, extends seaward Union, or as heretofore miles, (or beyond Mexico) geographical three and into the Gulf formerly “(3) in, made, lands which were all or reclaimed filled defined; navigable waters, beneath as hereinabove of a “(b) The the seaward boundaries term ‘boundaries’ includes or of the Great State or its boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico they member State became a Lakes as existed at time such Union, approved Congress, or extended or heretofore as as no shall the pursuant hereof but in event confirmed to section 4 navigable ‘boundaries’ or the term beneath waters’ term 'lands geo- interpreted extending from the coast line more than three “line of ordi- composite is then defined as “Coast line” which is the coast nary along portion low water marking line and the open direct contact with the sea (c). For States § waters.” seaward limit of inland Ocean, or more Pacific graphical or the miles into the Atlantic Ocean Mexico; leagues than marine into the Gulf three ordinary water low “(c) means the line of term ‘coast line’ The. with the along portion in direct contact coast which is waters; open marking limit of inland sea and the line the seaward “TITLE II navigable within state boundaries “lands beneath waters Rights “Sec. S. C. U. 1311]. States.— [43 § public “(a) hereby be in the determined and declared to It navigable (1) ownership of the lands beneath interest that title to and respective States, and the natural waters within the boundaries of the (2) right power waters, resources within such lands and manage, administer, lease, develop, lands and and use the said applicable be, with State law natural resources all accordance hereof, recognized, they hereby, subject con- provisions are respective firmed, established, assigned and vested in and 1950, persons entitled under the or the who were on June thereto located, respective the of in which the land is and law the States thereof; respective grantees, lessees, or successors in interest “(b)(1) hereby relinquishes unto releases The United States and herein, persons aforesaid, except as otherwise reserved said States and has, States, any right, title, if it in and all and interest of the United resources; lands, improvements, to all said and natural Boundaries. —The seaward “Sec. U. S. C. 1312]. [43 § Seaward boundary original hereby approved con- of State is each coastal geographical line miles distant from its coast firmed as line three boundary. or, Lakes, in the case of the Great to the international Any subsequent which State admitted to the formation of the Union already may line its seaward boundaries to a has done so extend line, geographical from inter- three miles distant its coast or the any Great or national boundaries of the United States Lakes body by Any boundaries. claim here- other water traversed such provision, statute, or constitutional tofore hereafter asserted either otherwise, indicating the intent of a State so to extend its bounda- seaward boundaries approved having previously no subsequent admitted “[a]ny State provides Act that already done has not formation of the Union geo- a line three its boundaries may seaward so extend 4.§ line . . .” from its coast . miles distant graphical on Pacific grants each effectively State Thus the Act geo- a line three submerged lands shoreward all coast derivatively line,” defined graphical miles8 from its “coast “Inland waters.” limit of inland seaward in terms of “the by the Act. is not defined waters” Act, Submerged Lands related to In later measure all sub- owned that the United Congress declared shelf seaward land in continental merged Lands Shelf the States. Outer Continental granted to seq. et § C. 1331 Act, 67 Stat. U. S. Lands Act marked Submerged passage in this case. long proceedings of a halt in the

beginning very increases waters Depth of California’s coastal enactment, May rapidly, 22, 1953, and as of date except close to the impractical to drill for oil it was rights in the mineral By granting to California shore. belt, all the in California the Act vested the three-mile no thought important, to be that then interests were Report. Master’s Special action was taken further rejected nor adopted, modified, neither Report That claim, hereby confirmed, prejudice approved ries without Nothing beyond any has, line. if its boundaries extend any questioning manner or in this section is to be construed boundary beyond prejudicing the State’s seaward existence provided by geographical its constitution miles it was so three if. prior became a member of laws to or at the time such State approved by Congress.” Union, or if it has been heretofore geo English, equals approximately .87 statute, or land mile One “3-mile graphical, marine, or The conventional limit” nautical mile. approx geographical miles, under international law refers three imately 3.45 land miles.

by Court, simply this but allowed to lie dormant. drilling By 1963, techniques improved had suffi- however, ciently importance to revitalize the the demarcation line between state federal lands. The complaint filed an reviving United States amended the Special Master’s Report redescribing the issues as by Submerged modified Act; the Lands the both United exceptions States and California filed new Report, ready and the case is now for decision.

The basic contention the United States is that simply Act moved the line of demarcation out three miles by from the line established decree. There- California fore, contends States, Special Master’s Report on the line of ordinary low water and the outer limit of inland waters as used decree just as relevant now as was Congress and, before acted, slight modifications, with the line drawn Special Master should be as taken line” for purposes “coast of the Submerged Lands Act. California asserts whereas Special Master determined inland waters to be those which the United States would have claimed as for purposes such relations, international the Sub- merged Act entirely Lands used the term in an different sense to mean those historically waters which the States be considered to inland —in California’s those case, waters which the State considered to at the time it entered the Union. Therefore, according California, the line Special drawn Report Master’s was deter- foreign mined wholly under standards Submerged Lands Act. point focal case interpretation this is the to be

placed on “inland waters” used in the Act. Since the term, Act does not define the we look to legislative history.

II. Congress Legislative History Meant Reveals Inland Waters the Definition Leave to the Courts. made purposes our were for changes relevant Two Lands Act between Submerged bill which became on Interior time it was sent to Senate Committee passage. of its and the time Insular Affairs waters written, bill defined inland (1) As first include straits, harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, ports,

“all and all other bodies sounds, bays, historic sea.” open which join water Committee.9 by removed the Senate This definition no limitation on (2) originally contained bill claimed. The that could be extent of historic boundaries no boundary claims to the extent of provision limiting from the coastline geographical miles more than three marine Pacific and three on the Atlantic and Oceans on was added to bill leagues on the Gulf Mexico stages of the debates.10 the floor of the in the late Senate waters and the Removal the definition Pacific, in the when addition of the three-mile limitation unmistakably California can- together, taken show that Act, prevail “as in the in its contention that used those Congress identify inland waters areas intended always thought were inland waters.”11 the states of “inland waters” By deleting original definition 9 Rep. Cong., Sess., 1st 18. S. No. 83d proposed Cong. Senator Anderson a similar amend Rec. 4116. Hearings the Senate bill was in committee. before ment while the other and Insular Affairs on S. J. Res. 13 and Committee Interior (hereinafter Hearings). bills, Cong., Sess., cited 83d 1st as Senate down, id., proposal After discussion was voted at 11Closing Brief of California 14. Congress plain meaning made its intent to leave the the term to independently be elaborated the courts, Submerged Lands Act. response

In objections substantial made in the hear- ings to original the bill’s broad definition inland waters on grounds that prejudice position it would and limit the which the take in could conduct future of foreign affairs,12 Cordon, Senator manager bill, recommended and obtained elimination of the defi- nition. The Report Committee which he authored explained:

“The words 'which include all estuaries, ports, harbors, bays, channels, straits, historic bays, and sounds, and all other bodies of water which join the open sea’ have been deleted from the reported bill because of the committee’s belief that question what constitutes inland waters should be left where Congress finds it. The committee is convinced that the definition neither adds nor away takes anything a State may have now in way of a coast and the lands underneath waters behind it.” S. Rep. No. 133, Cong., 83d 1st Sess., 18.13 The committee’s understanding that the measure “neither adds nor away takes anything a may State now in have the way of a coast and waters underneath it,” behind appears to be an acceptance “inland waters” as used in the prior opinions, Court what ever usage might have been. Various different con cepts of inland waters were asserted during the Senate Hearings, based on such depth elements as the water,14 the width of the opening of a coastal indentat ion,15 Boggs formula, and the common designation Hearings Senate 312-315, 1064-1065, 1085, 1304, 1378. 13 See Hearings (remarks also Senate Cordon). of Senator Hearings Senate 275-280.

15 Id., at 1052. etc.16 When straits, sounds, bays, of water

of bodies technical highly had question clear that it became dif one on supra) n. g., (see, e. aspects adopted Committee Senate arise, the would ferences had as it matter leaving just solution expedient any particular rejecting nor accepting it, neither found leave unaffected It intended formula.17 rule or responsi judicial waters and the judicial of inland view it. bility particularizing the Senate request Senator Cordon’s Reference to clause con- objectionable for deletion of the Committee understanding. firms that He said: been is one that has “The matter of inland waters I again be- courts, not, time defined time it was definition, one all-inclusive but lieve, during definition [by objected felt who those hearings] use of these words were that the [sic] 'inland legislative of the term attempted an definition bill, it for us in this waters,’ and was inadvisable attempt to make law title, which is a transfer to water. is or is not inland in the other field of what prob- was would language, felt, “The use it raised, ably that have not been questions raise are in- the decisions present whereas definitions to court.” available a The inland waters had “Senator MALONE. particular they not, for that did special job, master consideration, is, and that is now his re- under by Supreme under Court? port is consideration respect California, “Senator CORDON. With portion coast; yes.” and a of California Senate Hearings 1304-1305.

16 Id., at 1374-1380.

17 Id., at 1380-1385. Shortly virtually conclusive thereafter there follows statement:

“Senator CORDON. It not the chairman’s view attempting that we were a line delimit- draw ing waters, inland we using but that were a term that in is well known the law is the Court defined case, instance, and in the Lou- for case, might I line be de- isiana assume. That still fined, though may even not the area now have legal Id., status at same had before.” 1376. (Emphasis added.)

California fastens a statement in the Commit- made Report regard tee with definition: to the eliminated

“The elimination of the language, the commit- tee’s opinion, consistent with philosophy place Holland bill posi- States in the tion they in which both and the Federal Government thought they a century were more than half, and create respect situations with Rep. thereto.” S. Cong., No. 83d 1st Sess., From this California reasons that “inland waters” must have been intended to encompass all waters which the “thought” were waters, only for that is the inway Act which the can now interpreted to effectuate fully its supposed “philosophy” granting to the States all submerged lands within their historic boundaries.

If such a view of the bill’s accepted is as of purpose the time that Report Committee was written, is, there no nonetheless, inconsistency whatsoever that between 18In debates, the later Senator Cordon an answered assertion that rejected had Boggs by committee saying, formula “The com mittee, recall, as I I I correct, accepted and think am neither nor rejected Boggs any Cong. formula or other formula.” 99 Rec. 2633. quoted And see the material in n. infra.

154 leave the intent to definition legislative and a purpose at that restriction; without to the courts inland waters been yet boundary claims had limitation on time the writ- Act was then Act; thus as the into the incorporated submerged lands within all could have claimed ten, waters” “inland how no matter boundaries, historic their only affected would have definition was defined. The sea- pre-existing having adequate which, not those States three their boundaries boundaries, to extend chose ward As 4 Act. of the pursuant § the coastline miles from Hearings, during the Senator Cordon by stated a determination has approaches bill two “this that approach The first its application. the area of they into when came of the States of the boundaries any that has an State Union; election second, boundary geographical 3 not done so to extend de- coastline, that term is as present from its miles bill.” Senate present tense scribed Hearings 1374. limitation three-mile

Only adoption with the three-league lim- and the Oceans the Atlantic and Pacific interpretations of Mexico did the itation in the Gulf operation- inland waters become historic boundaries inconsistency thus created between ally related, of the Act shows philosophy the prior the limitation and the limitation would come into only to the extent that, modified.19 This amendment was play, philosophy reported made to the bill as very was one of few result of continuous Committee, and came Senate throughout the course of the debates criticism indefinite,20 grant coastal States extent 21 “claiming race” lands. engage in could (remarks Cordon). Hearings of Senator See Senate g., 3549-3564, e. See, Cong. 2881, 2916, 3038-3040, 3655- Rec. 4094-4099, 3656, 3884-3886, 4085-4086, (remarks Kilgore). Cong. Rec. 3655 of Senator

155 stating adoption that of points language 99 significant change worked no the bill. limitation Holland). (remarks Cong. Rec. 4114-4116 of Senator of understanding such simply But statements reflect major supporters of the bill that no States other than (on Texas claims side) provable and Florida Gulf had three that of beyond miles, and the claims those two beyond leagues.22 If go did three such were case, the limitation to have thought could indeed no effect, it, no state boundaries would run of afoul grant and the vast of to three miles up along length of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and three leagues, subject to proof, historical the Gulf Mexico, impaired. would not be Holland, Senator bill, author of proposed limiting boundary amend- ment to meet the fears of those Senators who had criti- cized the indefiniteness the bill. He explained:

“. . . I think the very amendment has little effect. But I am perfectly willing meet suggestions of my friends, some of whom have been opponents, and some of whom have supporters been joint resolution, to the effect they would like to have the language more clearly spelled out than it was in original measure, to the effect that there is no intention grant whatsoever to beyond boundaries 3 geographical miles in either the Atlantic or the Pacific, Congress and that this possible knows no situation under greater boundaries are claimed granted could be in the Gulf Mexico 3 than leagues; and, in that case, this Congress knows, although this amendment does not it, indicate 22 Cong. 99 (remarks Rec. Daniel), of Senator (remarks Holland), (remarks of Senator Anderson), of Senator (remarks of Senators Douglas). Anderson and Hearings Senate (remarks Holland). Senator particular by that affected States are but

there Cong. Rec. situation.” expan- of California’s was aware Holland Senator altogether them thought but claims, water inland sive untenable. is that understanding My

“Mr. HOLLAND. miles from beyond 3 case provable no has islands, provable its as to the mainland; that its I of the islands. each miles around be 3 case would matter. hearings on this in the so stated de- a consummation That is “Mr. DOUGLAS. at that am not all satisfied desired, I voutly to be but would resolution joint what Senator’s is that fully and not the coastline because accomplish, clearly defined. resolution, no joint Under

“Mr. HOLLAND. be maintained. contention could such of that? Is certain the Senator “Mr. DOUGLAS. believe, I That is what “Mr. HOLLAND. consulted authority I have every legal is what only rea- Incidentally, subject believes. contrary was thought why there was some son resolution, which original joint in the wording some the outer which have made omitted, would has been than that farther out boundary of inland waters resolution. joint provided which is now boundary the outer simply continues joint resolution decisions pursuant of inland waters . . . already made. Supreme Court if knows full well that Florida “The Senator from change should Supreme Court the United limits inland outer to what constituted the mind as degree, to a change it sufficient waters, should resolution, joint this up, only under open it could reach would questions initiative, but of its own talking we been anything much than have out farther about here. laws, that the from Florida believes

“The Senator by the over again over and over and as announced Court, as to the delimitation Supreme fixed, definite, and certain so waters, sufficiently are change complete, cataclysmic require that would field to philosophy Court’s Supreme any hope for an extension of the boundaries afford go they would good of the of so that State California contained beyond as to all areas out the islands way us to fore- an line. There is no for within outer changing its mind. Supreme the from close Court change mind reference to inland might its with It failing, But such waters and their delimitation. how, from Florida cannot see change, the Senator be resolution, possibly under there could joint this any affecting or other any question serious Cong. Rec. 2756-2757. State.” Senator Holland did not wish to foreclose California here the arguing (as from it has done both and before Master) waters are within the Special that its inland that judicial definition, opinion but it was his appropriate no to all permit such definition would California’s claim prevail. of waters shoreward their remote islands to Congress defined inland waters as it wished could have for purely Submerged Lands purposes domestic Louisiana, Act. United States See v. U. S. 30-36. It have adopted theory, Special could California’s or any theory, Instead, Master’s other. it chose to leave the definition of inland it—in waters where found Court’s hands. The not reveal a in- particular Act does tent that should broadly interpret courts “inland waters” so as to restore California its to historic re- expectations if might Indeed, what be.23

gardless expectations of the intent and any is to inference from Court draw to how waters should structure of Act as inland have which would Several were offered defeated amendments three grant limit or to international three-mile limited perimeter of from the entire coastal miles the shoreline around by three-league limit cutting any States, thus off claims 4157, 4203, Cong. Rec. 4473-4478. the Gulf Coast States. See the lead unacceptability of these The reason amendments measure, composed of from the Gulf Coast largely ers of the Senators concept any particular States, obvious, nothing to do with is and had of inland waters. designed Douglas specifically amendments

Senator introduced be- prevent claiming from water areas as waters those amended, (c), tween the mainland and remote islands. Section ordinary line’ line of would have read: “The term ‘coast means the along portion main continent which low water of the coast marking open the sea- sea and the line direct contact with the waters, the case island seaward limit of inland and in ward ordinary coast, around such such means the line low water italicized.) Cong. (Amendments The col- island.” 99 Rec. extremely re- leading rejection loquy to the of these amendments is hostility Senator vealing in the idea which total absence of basic any understanding Douglas pursuing and the absence an definition it embodied historical leaders measure waters. inland President, designed to this is

“Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. amendment up ambiguity pending joint conform an in the resolution and to clear the distinguished to what the from Florida Senator [Mr. Holland] joint resolution, author of the stated was real intention. problems joint with the is the of the connected resolution “One problem is, of where the line from which the base to be Senate Joint from the low-water mark are measured. seaward ‘coastline,’ the but it is not 13 defines this location as Resolution from precisely my in in the Senator certain mind or mind of the interpretation requested, what is Oregon whose I [Mr. Cordon] by joint reso- In the main on the meant the word ‘coastline.’ debate things. might lution, pointed 1 of I out that this definition mean might mean, hoped mean; namely, would the shore- First, it what I limits of inland main land mass and the external line of the continental that Con- would be most inference defined, plausible the have must limitation, gress, adopting the three-mile one de- other than line to be used intended some base of then, islands, of each those waters; of the shorelines and the case islands. claim, contrary pointed probably would a I out there be “But that attempt particularly California, that an would in the of case being from a line drawn be to define 'coastline’ as made the term edge the along the outer outer the continent out to and main tremendously subject. important lying is islands off the coast. This a very areas, particularly Cali- It in the involves substantial case used, then the fornia. If it is the definition which is latter far the main the out —and water between remote islands—however waters, inland not external land would become continental mass waters, intervening submerged lands become the all the would property of the coastal State. argument President, Mr. I made can understand the “Mr. LONG. completely Illinois, from I the but believe his amendment Senator objective striving

fails to the he is to achieve. reach testimony representative “If of the De- one the of the examines position partment State, he see that it is the State will Department administration, posi- present as it also the previous administration, and, know, of all tion of so far as I other administrations, marginal begins the line of Wherever sea position very simple to take in the inland waters ends. That is a regard straight line, case of a as is the situation with coast synony- line are State of the shore line and coast There Texas. mous in almost all instances. complicated

“However, we con- the situation becomes more when bays, having many indentures, islands, sounds, coves, sider a coast present opinion and the like. At there is a difference of between governments precisely Government as to State Federal agreed, where line of But inland waters located. it is well always agreed, marginal begins point it has been that the sea at where fine of waters ends. apply

“I should like to that definition to State of Louisiana. regret map purpose I I do for the not have here Louisiana my study demonstrating point, have but all who made question agree body of known as Chandeleur Sound is a water its inland concept of subjective

pendent upon each State’s been to have prove limitation would waters, for such a in the claims of California’s acceptance at as full all, none case would show. present large islands, each of In there is a number

inland water. that area by agreed both Government to another. It is the Federal island close always agreed, that Chan- government, and it has been and the State Douglas amendment The effect deleur Sound inland water. although part high seas, a would be to make Chandeleur Sound Sound Government never contended that Chandeleur the Federal has always seas, part high government the State has was a claimed it was inland water. Depart-

“Likewise, bays, position in the it is the State case of of the bays The 10 miles are inland waters. ment that wider than bay a 10 miles headlands mouth of distance of between across the place marginal begins. sea The amendment marks the where the again by the Senator from Illinois would effect once offered have the merely declaring bay part high seas, such a to be a of the because wider than 6 between headlands. it is miles “Obviously, submitting from Illinois is his own defini- Senator effect, is a inland waters tion of inland waters. In it definition of single support government have of a in the which does not State support Department; States; does it not have the the State Depart- approval with the it is a definition that does not meet Justice; definition, effect, it is not meet with ment of that does single approval department of of a either the Federal Government governments. or the State authority accepting no of this amend-

“There is inference they begin ment, namely, that of inland the definition waters is that lines from intersect in at the shore line where 3-mile headlands bay. type amendment, support There is no for this other than appeals to the Illinois. that it from Senator problem. struggled “The committee has with this The committee defining struggled formulas for inland waters. with several different Originally, joint provided inland waters should resolution bays, straits, However, sounds, there was include all estuaries. Department objection some to that definition of Justice. Department prefer- of Justice contended that would be far more waters, attempt simply able not to to define but use waters,’ the standard would words ‘inland to meet that those words suggestion ordinarily suggest. Therefore, Department at the III. Submerged Meaning in the “Inland

The Waters” to the Convention Act Should Conform Lands and the Territorial Sea Contiguous Zone. definition judicial then, determining turn,

We that the bulk immediately appears It waters.” “inland on the Sub- during debates by Congressmen of cases cited inland waters Act for merged proposition Lands by the courts” again and time “been defined time have Department support Justice, suppose of the and I with estuaries, straits, State, ‘including bays, and words all sounds/ joint resolution. were stricken from the agree- best language joint is the “I submit that the resolution competent offi- reached, upon the advice of ment that could be Department, as well Department cials of the State Justice from all the had available to it as the advice that the committee committee testified, retain the who and therefore we should witnesses from accept Senator language rather than the definition of the Illinois. islands off the

“Mr. DANIEL. Is it not true that there are some distant, are far as 3 miles and that main continent which not as with reference to would confuse the situation this amendment apply them? . . . would have to this amendment instead We present permits and the both the Nation rule inland waters along to measure from the outer line those islands. State . . . “Mr. HOLLAND. [Douglas] trying is

"I think I understand what the Senator trying complete to attain accord with attain. What he is is Florida, which are far remote belief of the Senator from that islands beyond coast, reasonable from the and clear inland waters them; conception, each of have a 3-mile shelf around clearly of international shown in the statement while that fact Secretary Congress by the law furnished to the committee in the last proposed time, Acheson, the amendment of State at that Mr. Dean would not effectuate that situation at all . . . .” Cong. Rec. 4240-4243.

The amendment was defeated 50 to 26. 99 pro- rivers, such as lakes and deal with interior waters join water which classifying bodies vide no assistance in this prior case In this latter context no open sea.24 term. precisely defined the Court has ever waters” “inland clearly indicated that opinion limits the outer content since an international was to have interna- Country’s the of waters would determine inland the particularize the Court did coastline, tional but led subsequently that task which definition.25 It was Special of Master. appointment the the 24 (remarks Hill). Cong. See, g., 3110-3112 of Senator e. 99 Rec. 25 purely legal question the owned The 1947 case raised the —who deciding rights marginal In beneath the sea belt? and mineral heavily they belonged on to the States the Court relied that United responsibilities the of the Federal Government. international open sea, from “But does in the which detracts whatever nation may charge nations, or which another nation its common usefulness it, question among nations as detracts from is a for consideration such, separate governmental this Govern- and not their units. What anywhere do, ocean, in the is a does, ment or even what the states may treaty subject upon which the nation enter into and assume (footnote obligations.” international 332 U. S. similar omitted). part opinion not a

The also established that landlocked waters belong open part marginal belt, the sea are not and remaining way actually fixing only problem States. The dividing marginal belt, line of owner- the location of the and hence the ship States, that of determin- between the State and the United was begin. ing open The-Court where the sea ends and landlocked waters precisely prob- specifically question It is that left that unresolved. open defining constitutes inland lem of what constitutes sea and what present waters which we must decide-in the case. question (1) present will determine for the

Resolution of that nations, marginal against belt which we claim other location of the ships foreign (2) define the areas within which nations have right passage. Unquestionably, no of innocent the definitions of what open is, constitutes sea and inland waters to borrow the words of the opinion, subject upon may “a which the nation enter into and treaty obligations.” Negotiations at assume or similar international nowas interna- there that Master found Special decided, inland waters definition for tionally accepted position was which circumstances, that in those of its conduct in the on question took States He consid- controlling. foreign affairs should foreign our which to determine ered the relevant date decree, to be date policy position the assertion rejected He therefore 27, 1947. October written Department from State letters declaring present then the United policy At before him. question were conclusive on Master Special required the same time that decision dating foreign policy great many to consider a materials thread back to in an to discern a consistent attempt waters. policy of United States on the definition ultimately He decided that as of 1947 the United States bay only inland water position had taken the if mouth than closing line could be drawn across its less long satisfy miles a area enclosing sufficient water Boggs the formula.27 filing Report policy

Since the of the Master’s the Special changed of the significantly. United States has Indeed may a now be said that there is settled international 24, the defining 1961, rule On waters. March Hague beginning just The end, in were and the directed to Contiguous Zone, Convention on the Territorial Sea and the to which party separating we in 1961, became a now establishes rules for the open sea from inland waters. Acting Secretary Attorney Letter from of State Webb to General McGrath, 13, 1951, Hearings 460; from November Senate letter Secretary Attorney McGrath, February of State Acheson to General 12, 1952, Hearings Senate supra. 5, Special See n. Neither the Master nor the United Boggs having States the treated formula as been the “definitive” position. United States Special The Master recommended it as an “appropriate measuring sufficiency for technical method” the of the depth bays. Report Special Master 26. Territorial on the the Convention ratified

United 5639) A. I. No. (T. S. Contiguous Zone Sea and number requisite when 1964, 10, September on into force. went it, the Convention had ratified nations method28 straight-base-line use a do not For nations which Norway, Kingdom v. (see United inland waters to define ^[1951] I. C. J. Rep. 116), the Convention permits a 24- a “semicircle” bays line closing for maximum mile enclosed. area the water testing sufficiency of test for comprise at bay a must requires The test semicircle line as would closing water area within least as much equal diameter semicircle with be contained the 24-mile line. length closing Unquestionably of the repre- now together line with the test closing semicircle of the United States.29 position sents ignore we contends that must United States Contiguous Territorial Convention Sea and the duty giving to “inland performing Zone in our content and must Submerged Act, waters” as used in the Lands restrict what would determining ourselves to our decision for presented have been had the been us deci- question May 1953, sion on At that date enactment. time there no international accord on defini- (although tion waters, of inland and the best evidence strenuously by California) position contested Department States was letters State Special which the Master to treat as conclusive. refused Submerged We do think that Lands Act has so Congress, restricted us. passing Act, left the responsibility defining inland waters to this Court.30 We think that did not tie hands our at the same time. 28 34, See n. infra.

29 Rusk, Secretary State, Kennedy, Letter from Dean to Robert Attorney General, January 15, 1963, Legal II International Materials 527. legislative supra. history, II, See discussion and Part rubber-stamp the state simply to wished us Congress Had 1953, in policy Department ments of the State opinion is our It so itself.31 readily have done it could to the content giving responsibility that we fill our best and the best by adopting Congress employed words which Convention available. The workable definitions most Zone, approved Contiguous the Sea the Territorial and President,32 provides by the by the Senate and ratified for of the Sub purposes such We adopt definitions. them single coastline merged Act. This establishes Lands Act Lands Submerged the for both the administration (bar of our international relations and the conduct future by established ring change an in the rules unexpected Convention). comprehensiveness Furthermore the the many of the lesser answers to provides of the Convention the Conven which, to coastlines absent problems related tion, be most troublesome.33 would Cordon). Long Cong. (remarks See 99 Rec. 2633 of Senators by May 1960, approved 26, The Convention was the Senate 1961, Cong. 11196, by 24, was the March Rec. ratified President 1965, January 1, Dept. 44 State Bull. 609. See Treaties Force— develop position ignore support In should we. concept practice respecting the ments in of nations the law transpired subsequent passage which have waters position Submerged Lands Act —a which the Solicitor General frankly recognized presentation easy in his oral not an one was cites statement Government maintain —the United States during hearings. made Senator Cordon years prepared “Those the view—and who bill over took way the line that is the bill is before us—that 'coastline’ means ordinary portion along coast which is low water open marking direct contact with the sea and line seaward present limit of It is coast- inland waters. That is in the tense. line as of here from now. We have confirmed 3 miles the coastline as of now. . . . attempt

“If we now to discuss a coastline of whenever treaty Revolutionary signed— War was concluded and the CDCD that “inland claim alternatively to its argues,

California a State’s within lying areas ocean all embraces waters” intended Congress if that boundaries, seaward historic in accordance defined judicially to be waters” “inland possess should definition usage, such international with changes future encompass as to so ambulatory quality an years if 10 Thus, practice. law in international amended, were of the Convention now the definitions from Submerged extent say that would if the at least automatically shift, Act would grant Lands the extent of enlarge were of such amendment effect this reject We available to the States. submerged lands Before Act reasons. view of the for several open-ended assurance where today’s say no with decision one could Act; lay contemplated by waters as the line of inland on any hence could no tenable reliance there have been particular today line. that situation will have After changed. Expectations will reliance be established and placed on line Allowing we future shifts of define. understanding international inland waters respecting Submerged grant alter the Act extent Lands would substantially expectation undercut the definiteness might Moreover, it. a view should attend such unduly inhibit the conduct its United States just attempt I now now and do recall the date —if we to determine then, a coastline we our as would seem me that increase beyond what, bill, I we difficulties understand the envisioned they place, Hearings the first but which we left where were.” Senate 1354-1355. suggestion reply

That statement was made in to a that State should pres- extending have the choice of its three miles from its boundaries ent three from of the time it coastline or miles its coastline as entered reply expresses opposition to the Union. Senator Cordon’s his ground on the idea the exact location of the ancient shoreline extremely would difficult to determine. It reveals no intent framing the courts in used restrict definitions to be to determine present coastline. ownership by making relations foreign the upon continually dependent vis-á-vis States “Freezing” the nations. foreign with position takes the Convention in terms of meaning of waters” “inland to fulfill largely and also serves this, avoids definition which stability of definiteness requirements rights of grant property congressional should attend to the belonging United States.

IV.

Subsidiary Issues. is of the Con- Once it the definitions decided Zone Contiguous vention the Territorial Sea and fall into many subsidiary of issues before us apply, place. Straight that because argues Base Lines.—California straight-base- permits a nation to use the

the Convention determining for its seaward boundaries if line method deeply cut if is into, line is indented and or there “coast vicinity,” fringe of islands the coast in its immediate along boundary lines is to use such California therefore free bays and its islands.34 openings across the of its around rec- agree with the We States that the Convention United provides: Article 4 of the Convention deeply cut “1. In localities line is indented and where the coast into, fringe along immediate or if there is a of islands the coast in its points vicinity, appropriate straight joining the method of baselines may employed of drawing be in from the breadth the baseline which the territorial sea is measured. any appre- drawing depart not

“2. The such baselines must coast, general the sea ciable extent from the direction lying sufficiently closely to the areas within the linked lines must be subject regime to be land domain to the internal waters. elevations, “3. Baselines shall drawn to and from low-tide not be permanently lighthouses unless which are similar installations above sea level have been built on them. straight applicable

“4. baselines under Where method of provisions determining paragraph 1, may taken, be account particular peculiar region baselines, of con- economic interests by other lines used straight base validity

ognizes permit would instance, Norway countries, but that chose, if it base lines such to use United our inter- extend lines to base use such may interna- traditional beyond their boundaries national opposition expressed against limits tional for conduct- responsibility The national States. be accom- obviously must relations ing international our in the of the States interests legitimate with the modated a contrac- sovereign. Thus are they over territory the Fed- imposed by recognized territory tion of a State’s foreign policy would name eral Government an of state sov- extension highly questionable. But as claiming area it inland by to an international ereignty sovereignty, national necessarily also water would extend for responsibility Government’s and unless the Federal must questions sovereignty hollow, of is have external enlarging the to from themselves. power prevent States so We conclude the the to that choice under Convention use straight-base-line determining the method for against waters is that claimed other nations one rests with the Federal Government, not with the individual States. upon Massachusetts,

California relies v. Manchester 240, proposition may U. S. for the that a State draw its pleases boundaries as it within limits recognized by the law of regardless by nations of position taken Although may United States. some dicta the case be to support read that we view, do not so interpret opinion. The case an of expansion involved neither our cerned, reality importance clearly and the of which are evidenced by long usage. a system straight

“5. may by of applied baselines be a State in such a manner high as cut off from the seas the territorial sea of another State. clearly “6. The coastal State straight must indicate on baselines

charts, publicity to which given.” due must be by the boundary opposition nor international traditional the State. position United States taken Convention Twenty-jour-mile Closing Rule. —The position,35 present it is the recognizes, and United semicircle closing together 24-mile rule with the a bays for classifying test be used should of Cali Applying segments these tests to States.36 Kennedy, Rusk, Secretary State, from of to Robert Letter Dean Legal Mate Attorney General, January 1963, II International 527; in Answer to rials Brief the United States California’s Exceptions 148. 7 is The full text Article as follows: only belong bays

“1. article relates of which This coasts single a State. purposes bay articles,

“2. a is inden- For the of these a well-marked penetration proportion width tation is in such whose more mouth than as to contain landlocked waters constitute not, however, An mere of the coast. indentation shall curvature regarded bay large as, larger than, that area as unless its is as whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth semi-circle of that indentation. purpose measurement,

“3. For the the area of an indentation lying between mark the shore of the the low-water around joining the natural en- and a line low-water marks of its indentation points. Where, presence islands, an trance because inden- mouth, tation more than one be drawn has the semi-circle shall long lengths a line as sum total of the the lines across a,n different mouths. Islands within indentation shall be included they part as if water were of the areas of indentation. “4. If between the low-water the distance marks natural bay twenty-four miles, closing points of a not a entrance does exceed marks, may line be drawn between these two and the low-water thereby waters enclosed shall be as considered internal waters. “5. the distance between the low-water marks of the natural Where twenty-four points bay miles, straight a entrance of exceeds a base- twenty-four bay line of be in miles shall drawn within the such a possible manner as to enclose the maximum of water area that is with length. a line of that foregoing provisions apply

“6. The shall not to so-called ‘historic’ bays, straight system provided or in case where the baseline applied.” in article 4 is

170 Monterey dispute, appears here in it that fornia’s coast Bay seg of is water and that none the other coastal aspects these dispute37 ments in fulfill Convention test. We so hold. may

California asserts that the Santa Barbara Channel bay” a at openings considered “fictitious because of both ends the channel between are each and the islands less than 24 argues miles.38 The United States that bay channel is all; no at that it is a as strait serves 37 City parties Bay longer The stated that no Crescent an area dispute. in 38 recognizes The United States asserts that law no “international ” principle bays.’ unnecessary of ‘fictitious find We to decide question. The Government states: expression originated “The proposal by seems to have in a Experts, of Committee made to the Fifth Session the International Commission, suggesting general Law bays, a 10-mile rule for 10- straight baselines, providing mile limit for that baselines should limiting be drawn islands 5 shore, more than from miles groups baselines to groups miles islands between such mainland, except group opening such a one could be 10 miles. The bay.’ Special latter situation'was called a‘fictitious The Rapporteur adopted proposal this in an Addendum the Second Report Regime Sea, of the Territorial Law International Com- mission, Session, May English Fifth text, 1953. N. Doc. U. p. Annex, p. A/CN.4/61/Add.l, subject groups 4. The postponed by (Article 11, islands was the Commission in 1954 Report the International Covering Law Commission the Work (U. Its Sixth Session A/CN.4/88), p. N. 42), Doc. and there is special provision no subject on the in the Convention on the Terri- Contiguous finally adopted. torial Sea and the Zone Report The of the International Law Eighth Commission on the Work of Its Session, p. 45, (U. fn. N. Doc. makes clear that A/C.6/L.378), original proposal subject attempt on the anwas to formulate expression already rule and not an of a rule in existence.” Brief for the United States in Exceptions 149-150, Answer to California’s n. openings at the ends of the Santa Barbara Channel are

miles and miles. areas two between a of communication useful route inland classified as may sea and as such open waters.39 our attention analogy directs

By way California Louisiana which Sounds off Breton and Chandeleur v. United States waters, claims as United States anal- Louisiana, n. Each of these 66-67, 108. 1, S.U. validity of the United only point up ogies serves Barbara Channel should argument States’ the Santa is a cul de bay. The Breton Sound not be treated as if Sound, separately The considered sac. Chandeleur only it leads joins, from Breton Sound be- a route of passage Breton is used as Sound. Neither In fact both are so shallow open tween two areas of sea. readily navigable.40 points to not be also as California is not the Strait of de Fuca. That strait claimed Juan bay” it does not by the United States as a “fictitious open two sea. areas connect Special Master on the extent Evidence submitted to of international use made of the Santa Barbara Channel there the use- sparse. evidence was indicated What ships route, specify of the whether the fulness but did not California using so were domestic or international.41 Secretary Attorney Acting See Letter from of State Webb to McGrath, 13, Hearings 1951. 460. See General November Senate Tate). Hearings (remarks also of Jack B. Senate 1084-1085 depth general ranges according between 6 feet passage Survey No. no to Coast Geodetic Chart but there is deep connecting as 12 as much feet the ends sounds. The parts “navigable legal sounds are in the sense even in the waters” Turner, See United States navigation. for v. 175 F. too shallow 2d 644, 647, denied, cert. 338 U. S. 41Testimony Special before the Master indicated that the channel provided protection rough from substantial amount seas ships passage Pacific and was used an alternate route of (Tr. “coming down from the Pacific Northwest.” 595. See also 608.) points In appendix, p. 57, Tr. a statement regards point now as for under interna- important, tional law as expressed Corfu Channel Case, ^[1949] I. Rep. 4, C. J. International Court of Justice held a country if, could not claim a strait as inland water in its natural'state, it served as a useful route for interna- passage. tional We do not consider the of con- point trolling importance. The in the United States has not past claimed the Santa Barbara Channel as inland water opposes any such claim now. The channel has not regarded bay been as a historically geographi- either cally. circumstances, In these as drawing with the straight if lines, base we hold that the United States does employ concept choose to of a bay” “fictitious order to extend our international boundaries around the framing islands Channel, Santa Barbara it cannot be forced do so California. is, It therefore, unneces- sary to reinstitute proceedings master to before deter- mine the question factual of whether the passageway is internationally useful.

3. Historic Inland By the terms of the Con- Waters. — vention the 24-mile closing rule does not apply to so- bays.42 called “historic” Essentially bays these are over which a coastal traditionally nation has asserted and maintained dominion with the acquiescence foreign nations.43 California claims that virtually all the waters here in dispute are historic inland waters as the term is internationally understood. It primarily relies an interpretation of its State Constitution to the effect that Davidson, California, Coast Oregon, Pilot of Washington (4th 1889), p. 53, ed. “The large westerly islands break the force of the swell of along the Pacific coast-line, good and in winter afford lee from the full gales.” force of the southeast supra, 7, 6, See Art. n. 36. § 43See generally, Regime Juridical Waters, Including Historic Bays, Historic (1962). U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/143 outside the islands three miles run the state boundaries interpret so decisions several court bays,44plus Pedro Monica, and San Monterey, Santa applied it as straight with that, counters Bays to historic can no claim maintain lines, base by the United the claim is endorsed inland waters unless unnecessary to de- Master found Special States. The him, he on the evidence before question because, cide that traditionally not exercised concluded that California had dominion over waters. the claimed Bay, we do Monterey Since the 24-mile rule includes Bay, not Monica San consider here. As to Santa Bay, dispute, agree Pedro and the other water areas in we Special they with the Master that are not historic inland waters of the States. United

California contends that of the criteria for two studies determining historic waters have been made since Special Master filed his which that he report46 show applied wrong standards, vitiating thus his conclu- sions. In particular Special it is said that Master

44Article XII of the California Constitution 1849 described the boundary sea of the State of California as follows: running along boundary “. . . thence west and Pacific said line to the Ocean, extending English running miles; and therein three thence northwesterly in a following direction and the direction of the Pacific degree latitude, Coast to the 42d of north thence on the line of said degree place 42d beginning. north latitude to the Also all the islands, harbors, bays, along adjacent to the Pacific Coast.” 45 Industries, Superior Court, Ocean 235, Inc. v. 200 Cal. 252 P. (1927); Industries, 722 Greene, (D. Ocean Inc. 15 v. F. 2d 862 C. 1926) (Monterey Bay). People Stralla, N. D. Cal. v. 14 Cal. 2d (1939) (Santa Bay). Carrillo, 96 P. 2d 941 Monica United States v. Supp. (1935) (San Bay). F. Pedro Bays, (1957), Historic U. N. Doc. and Juridical Re A/CN.13/1 gime Waters, Including Bays, of Historic Historic U. N. Doc. (1962). A/CN.4/143 to be waters of historic thought concept

erroneously requiring waters of inland rule general exception an no substantial findWe proof. standard rigorous a report. his of this in indication constitution that its claim California’s evidence, theOn arguable, and islands bays boundary beyond a set county drawing boundaries many state statutes but limit of the state boundaries run to supposedly only three miles indicating a line way by other cut the legislative declaration Furthermore, from shore.47 con- active of further jurisdiction without evidence is not suf- over the waters of dominion tinuous assertion There is federal district to establish the claim.48 ficient Carrillo, F. Supp. States v. opinion, court an charges dismissed federal criminal (1935), which from the place offense which took more than three miles Bay ground bay shore of on the that the San Pedro California, federal, but it is diffi- jurisdiction; within cult to see this dismissal as an assertion of In dominion. successfully Santa Monica Bay, prosecute did a criminal place offense which took more than three miles Stralla, from the shore, People 617, v. 14 Cal. 2d 96 P. 2d 941 (1939). However, only the decision stands as the g.,E. Diego County, 1850, 15, p. 58; for San 2, see Cal. Stat. c. § 1851, 14, §2, p. 172; 1872, Cal. Stat. §§3907, c. Cal. Political Code 3944; 1923, 470, 38, 3945; 1919, p. Cal. Political c. Code Cal. Stat. § § 895; 1923, p. 361; 160, §38, §23137; Cal. Stat. c. Cal. Govt. Code 1947, 424, p. County, Cal. Angeles Stat. c. Por 1069. Los see Cal. 1850, 15, 1851, §3, p. 59; 14, §3, p. Stat. 172; c. Cal. Stat. c. Cal. 1856, 46, p.1, 53; 1872, Stat. 3945; c. Cal. Political Code Cal. Stat. § § 1919, 470, 20, p. 877; 1923, 3927; c. Code Cal. Political Cal. Stat. § § 1923, 160, §20, p. 343; §23119; c. Cal. Govt. Code Cal. Stat. 424, p. c. 1055. generally, Regime Including of Waters, See Juridical Historic Bays, (1962). Historic N. Doc. U. 80-105 A/CN.4/143, ¶¶ have been criminal of which we jurisdiction assertion of made aware.49 disputed that of States disclaims United to hold

areas inland waters. We are reluctant are historic that in all circum- such a disclaimer would be decisive stances, evi- might a case in which the historic arise beyond us, before dence was clear doubt. But in the case exclu- with its and questionable evidence continuous waters, we disputed sive assertions of dominion over think the decisive. disclaimer disagree as parties Harbors Roadsteads. —The anchorages to whether inland encompass waters should beyond the outer harborworks harbors. The Conven- Contiguous tion on Zone the Territorial Sea (Art. 8) states without that “the outermost qualification permanent harbour integral part works which form an system regarded forming part harbour shall be the coast.” take incorporated We that to be the line the Submerged Lands Act.

As open for loading, unloading roadsteads used anchoring ships, (Art. 9) the Convention provides that such areas should included sea, and, territorial by implication, they not to be are considered inland adopt waters. interpretation. We 5. The Line Low Ordinary Along the Cali- Water. — fornia coast there are two tides low each day, one which is lower generally than the other. The assertion of the States, with Special agreed, Master that the of ordinary line low water is taking obtained

49The Attorney United States for the Southern District of Cali participated fornia as an amicus curiae in sup the Stralla case and ported position of California. doWe not consider this action significant so toas foreclose controversy the United States in the Compare before us. by the Secretary discussion actions taken the of the Interior California, United States v. S.U. 39-40. average would tides. low all average the low tides. lower

only the the better represents position California’s hold that We Act defines Lands Submerged The matter. view of water.” ordinary low “line of in terms coastline along line low-water “the (Art. 3) uses The Convention recog- officially charts large-scale on marked the coast (i. States). We e., the United State” by coastal nized and on conform, thus indicated lines the two interpret Coast Pacific charts of the coastal States the official United Sur- Geodetic Coast and States by the United prepared marked. water line which low lower vey, it is the was before this case Accretions. —When 6. Artificial contended the United Master, Special inland waters outside to lands rights all mineral owned entered submerged at the date California which were by means enclosed or reclaimed though since Union, even ruled Master Special structures. The artificial because belonged to California lands so enclosed or filled by interna- clearly recognized were changes such artificial change Furthermore, the coastline. tional law to recognized through that the Special States, Master protect navigable waters, power its control over had interests from artificial encroachment unwarranted structures, changes that the effect of future could agreement parties. thus be the subject between the The United States now contends that whereas Sub- merged recognized Lands Act state title confirmed within all artificial as well as natural modifications to the prior shoreline passage Act, Congress meant to recognize only natural modifications after date of the Act. Act, however, specific makes no reference to artificial accretions, legislative and nowhere his- tory anyone did question.50 focus The United

50See, g., (remarks e. Cong. Cordon); Rec. 2697 of Senator Hearings 1344-1345,1353-1358,1374. Senate law of by analogy property to rule points States submerged land belongs to artificial fill the owner Coal Co. v. it is Marine & deposited. onto which R. States, 65. We think the situation 47, United S.U. by push- its land domain different when State extends extend ing sea; sovereignty back in that its should case to be land, generally thought new The consid- prior opinion.51 case to the 1947 California of possibility erations led us whole- reject which to sale in the line inland waters changes location changes law, supra, pp. international by caused future relatively 166-167, apply slight do with force to the sporadic changes which can be about artifi- brought cially. Arguments based on inequity to United allowing States of changes effect in the boundary between federal and state submerged lands making changes future artificial in the coastline are met, as the Special pointed Master out, by ability protect through power itself its over navigable waters.

With the modifications set out opinion this we approve the recommendations the Special Master. The parties, them, either of may, September 1, before 1965, submit a proposed decree to carry opinion this into

51See, g., e. Statement of Robert Moses and the discussion follow ing Hearings it. Senate points by analogy judicial interpretations United States Swamp 519, Land Act of 9 Stat. to the effect that

granted only swamp those lands passage. which were at the date However, specific: the terms of swamp that Act were “. . . those and overflowed lands . . . passage remain shall unsold at the act, be, of this hereby, granted shall and the same are . . and it granted sovereignty thought over which had never been change changed. because nature the land an and enter prepare will failing Court which the

effect, Court. Term of next at the decree appropriate so ordered.

It is no took Justice Clark Mr. and Justice The Chief this case. or decision part in the consideration Douglas Black, Mr. Justice with whom Mr. Justice dissenting. joins, California, S. 332 U. v. in

In 1947 United paramount States had that the United held this Court lying adjacent submerged lands and in the waters rights appointed was to Special Master A its coastlines. to land segments to of that case apply the rule In believ- Congress, off the mainland California. unfairly decision denied this Court’s ing historic submerged lands within their coastal States upset Lands Act Submerged boundaries, passed the Congress to the States what that decision and restore historically been rightfully had and theirs. believed 13-year- on the today Court decides this case basis attempted carry the Report old Master’s which out relying opinion and decree. Instead of 1947 California on which Report, based decision Congress forcefully emphatically rejected in 1953 in Submerged I to a Act, the Lands would refer this case hearings, findings Master for new and recommendations light Submerged Act, be made in Lands the controlling law as it now exists. statutory

I. The issue in this case is whether California or the segments States is the owner seven of land lying the mainland under the sea off of California.1 Most Appendix See A. bays are called segments the lie under outside what to them the is whether popular usage, question and as mar- underlying much the land them and the how ginal large seg- beyond belongs sea to California.2 One two of touches ment, bays issue, which also includes opposite up approxi- sea chain of which lie islands off Santa mately mainland, separated by 50 miles Channel, Barbara Pedro Gulf of Channel, San Santa claims segment, Catalina.3 As to that ownership of sea separating bottom under the water beyond islands from the mainland and three miles argues islands, while the United States that California only owns a strip geographic three miles wide each around extending island and one from geographic three miles shore, mainland with intervening submerged land all belonging to the Federal Government. In order present understand the contentions of parties, the it is necessary go years year back to the in before which dispute controversy of which is present an aftermath came before this Court.

For many decades some of bordering the States on the sea had claimed dominion over water submerged and lying off their shores. Their usually claims stated were as extending open into the sea a distance three statute Appendix B, Monterey bays See Bay, which shows one of in question. submerged California claims that all the land and waters landward the line drawn across are the headlands inland waters within State, the historic coastline of the and that its bound historic ary, rights Submerged the outer limit of Act, under Lands extends three miles seaward that line. The States claims United only that California submerged owns belt of lands within three miles of the low-water mark of the mainland shore. Appendix See C. California all claims land be tween along the line mainland, drawn the islands from the and a belt marginal sea three miles seaward that line. The United only States contends that is entitled to a belt within three miles of the mainland shore and three miles each of around the islands. leagues marine or three miles, geographic miles, three as the term line,” “coast lines.” But

from “coast their in modern as it-is used claims, many such used the low- simply not mean descriptions, does geographic rather, it means shore; of the mainland mark water mark low-water line which follows legally recognized straight relatively shore where the of the shore follows points other which at sea, and facing open flow waters,” of “inland recognized outside limits Such in the land. or form indentations into the sea bays estuaries, may include certain “inland waters” offshore a mainland and between and waters harbors, islands. no raised Federal Government many years the

For that their bound- States’ claims objection the various out- marginal sea, extended including claims to the aries, However, by the into the sea. for various distances ward 1930 n it became off submerged lands that apparent and valuable contained rich the shores of certain States In the late natural resources. oil reserves and other spite first time asserted 1930’s it was for the States, and claims the States’ historic of all States, was the owner sub- respective coastal the three- and without lying both within merged lands “inland Cali- under waters.” limits, except land mile they the owners claimed were fornia and other States their historic boundaries submerged lands within of all Union, respective their admissions to the dating back to historic inland waters and a including of course both marginal beyond. three-league strip sea three-mile or in controversy the 1945 To settle this United 4 (or nautical) approxi geographic equals or marine mile One (or league mately English) or One marine 1.15 statute land miles. equals geographic approximately three miles or 3.45 statute miles. 5 (hereafter Cong., S.'Rep. 133, Sess. as Senate See No. 83d 1st cited Report), 21. against California

brought in this the action Court alleging that aftermath, is an today’s decision simple of, pos- in fee United States was “the owner lands, rights powers over, sessed of in and paramount underlying the Pacific things minerals and other of value mark on lying ordinary low Ocean, seaward water the coast of California and outside of the inland waters . . . .” State, extending seaward three nautical miles California was objected immediately complaint vague because make clear how the Government did not broadly or Cali- narrowly it defined “inland waters.” fornia also answered that historic boundaries as set its out in its in approved constitution when 1849, Union, only strip included out admitted not three miles from “all har- coast, islands, but also bors, bays along adjacent coast,” the Pacific and that therefore “all all navigable lands under waters within belonged the boundaries of the State” it. This Court then held in in California, 1947 United States v. 19, U. S. and not the United States paramount rights had in all the waters and marginal within three-mile belt of sea “outside waters.” S. also U. 805. See Louisiana, 699; States v. S.U. United States Texas, v. problem deciding U. S. 707. As for the what were inland waters what were and of draw- not, ing an exact demarcation between the inland waters and a three-mile strip marginal sea, this said that Court “there determining general is no reason after why, who owns the might three-mile belt here involved, the Court if later, detailed necessary, hearings have more greater order to determine' with particular definiteness segments boundary.” at S., U. long hearings

It was not before such did become neces- sary, for the United States and California found them- in sharp disagreement selves as to the term “inland what the of segments specific to applied when meant waters” long time, at that assumed parties Both California coast. passed, Act was Submerged Lands before the of usage from the derived given a content to term was be relations, foreign States’ law the United international and the claim upholding in decision since the California mar- belt of the three-mile to under land United States protection of federal necessity relied on the ginal sea had of seas as an incident the territorial of and control international of But the doctrines sovereignty. national what exactly as contradictory to law so confused and were and water, bay must have be inland measurements under a channel between islands what conditions were able water, mainland was that both sides supporting them. This Court therefore precedents find findings to make Special case to a Master submitted the law and recommendations of as to whether each fact segments of land off submerged seven the mainland California, dispute, seven now in should same meaning of the “inland waters” within the treated as opinion property decree, therefore 14, 1952, S. 891. On State.6 U. October said Report, Master filed his S. which he U. in dispute the land he assumed that the test whether depended whether it was inland belonged California recognized generally rule “by (1) any customary, water by (2) law ... or effective assertion international international States on its own behalf claim relations.” He thus considered based on totally irrelevant, as historic boundaries of the State in this and he having rejected opinion, been Court’s ruled in substance that United States was owner question lands in the extent claimed. proper also to were The Master was asked consider what criteria measuring ordinary low-water mark on the shore. correctly opinion the interpreted Whether the test he used of need not concern us at course point. this filed Then in 1953 exceptions, as did the States. Congress picture by passing Submerged entered the the Act, during Lands and for more than 10 years, parties neither of steps the took further in this Court and the Report lay dormant, appeared Master’s Congress the Act of dispute. had determined the Submerged gave Lands of the coastal Act 19537 States “title to and ownership the lands beneath navi- gable waters within respective boundaries States, and the natural resources within lands and such waters . ...”8 It navigable defined “lands beneath waters” submerged lying as all land three geo- within graphic miles seaward of “coast line” of the State,9 which was in turn stated to be the low-water mark where in open was direct sea, mainland contact with the elsewhere the seaward limit of “inland waters.”10 The Act in said, language importance of extreme present resolution of the dispute present at the time, each State was have to submerged title lands “to boundary line each such State”11 with term meaning “boundaries” seaward “the boundaries of State they existed time ... at the such became State a member the Union, approved or as heretofore the Congress,”12 up to a limit of three geographic miles from the coastline in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, leagues three from the coastline the Gulf Mexico.13 Thus given each State was title to the 7 29, (1958 ed.). 67 Stat. 43 U. S. C. 1301-1315 §§

8 3, 29, (1958 30, ed.). 67 Stat. 43 U. S. 1311 § C. § (1958 (a)(2), 29, ed.). (a)(2) 67 Stat. C. 1301 43 U. S. 9 §2 § (c), 29, (c) ed.). (1958 Stat. 43 U. S. C. §2 § (a)(2). §2 (b), (b) ed.). (Em (1958 C. 1301 67 Stat. 43 U. S. §2 § phasis supplied.) 13Ibid. at the time as far as its boundaries out off its shores go more which were stated Union, entered State line.” beyond “coast (or leagues) miles than three waters.” limit its “inland outer line” The “coast was “coast line” State’s whether the here is question The basic by look- is be determined in the Act term used as the it entered when boundaries at the State’s historic ing carrying by the Master used byor the standard Union, decree. out the California transferring title passed after the Act years

For 10 States, further action no lands submerged to these the by either was taken pending in this Court in the case original claim or California.14 California’s United States within inland waters channels were bays and that these im- to be so had ceased decree meaning the of this Court’s all the given title to the States had been portant, since in- boundaries, their historic submerged lands out three miles of their claims to cluding recognition passed, marginal years sea. After 10 had leagues of the be- oil resources had exploitation undersea however, from the great water at distances possible deep come dis- present this and the States raised mainland, United limit concerning outer with California where the pute Submerged submerged given by the State land this de- lay. States contends that Lands Act The United State’s location of the “coast line” since the pends on the line,” three from the “coast rights extended miles added in turn depends location of the “coast line” and that the waters,” edge on the location the seaward the “inland ac- argues which the United States should be measured “inland cording to the definition of waters” used hearings case; Master in his in the the United California argues report that the of the Master settled States further of the Sub- case, subsequent passage Submerged power Congress The constitutional to enact Texas, upheld Lands Act was in Alabama v. U. S. on the correctness

merged Lands Act had no effect that since the stated replies standard he used. California claims to the States’ purpose of the Act was to restore boundaries, within their historic submerged lands boundaries which included all waters within the States’ into the terri- beyond inland waters and three miles edge torial the “coast line” or of the “inland sea, seaward waters” was to be terms of what a State had defined historically coastline, claimed was its the line from which it had claim to boundary, by measured its its three-mile marginal In words, pro- sea. other poses in measuring California’s even under the Submerged Lands Act this Court should start internationally with line of waters” defined “inland as applied by in carrying the Master out the decree in the case, and three California measure miles out. California argues that since the effect of the case was rejected by the Submerged Act, Lands this Court should only look Submerged governing Act for the Lands law defining and in boundary State’s should start with the coastline as historically recognized when the State admitted to the Union, from which the State measured its three-mile claim marginal sea, and measure three miles outward from coastline, restoring that historic thus State’s historic I language boundaries. think that purpose Submerged and of the Lands Act of 1953 show California right.

II. This holding Court’s 1947 precipitated one of the most hotly political contested post-war issues of the decade. Critics of the decision said that it a complete had come as surprise and effectively away had taken from the coastal States what they thought and others had from the time they entered the Union belonged and before to them. In 1952 a resolution passed Congress designed both houses of to “restore” to the they States the lands which decision.15 they owned before thought

had federal “give away” a this Many bill opposed the bill’s prevented Truman and President public domain, he doing, however, vetoing Even so it.16 passage by and zealous so careful frankly that “Even recognized of the Secretary late as the interest public of the guardian undersea at first assumed Ickes, Harold Interior, by the States.”17 lands owned were the Federal upset controversy over whether The in the had declared title which this Court Government’s however, January 9,1953, and continued, 1947 decision of himself and of Florida on behalf Senator Holland bill, Joint Resolu- Senate other introduced Senators which had with the bill was identical 13,18 tion amend- year with various which, passed previous Congress, signed was both houses ments, passed Submerged law as Eisenhower, and became President law as stated purpose Lands Act of enacted confirm and establish titles

“To within State bound- navigable beneath waters within such lands aries and natural resources jurisdiction . . . to confirm the and waters re- control of the States over natural the Continental Shelf sources seabed seaward State boundaries.”19 summary 20, Cong., S. J. Res. 82d 2d Sess. For a of earlier proposed legislation dealing submerged lands, see United States with Louisiana, 1, 6, v. S. 363 U. n. 4. May 139, Message President, 29, 1952, from the S. Doc. No. Cong., 82d 2d Sess. 17Id., p. 2. 13, substantially bill, Cong., S. J. Res. 83d 1st Sess. A identical Cong., Sess.,

H. R. 83d was introduced in the House. 1st (Emphasis supplied.) dealing clause, 67 Stat. 29. The latter Shelf, original with outer Continental added to the bill committee. testify at the Senate committee

As first witness to said that hearings bill, on his Senator Holland Joint general “the of Senate Resolution purpose vest in sev- confirm, establish, and recognize, is to of sub- eral this means all 48 them —the States —and merged and the resources therein lands natural boundaries, their respective subject within powers regulation of all exercise the Fed- purpose eral Government navi- commerce, gation, defense, affairs, national and international powers none which Federal include property rights. This will confirm joint resolution maritime States —of which rights there are 20—the they which respectively enjoyed had since the found- ing of our up Nation and to the date of the deci- sion case, in their offshore and waters lie within their constitutional boundaries.” object, Its he said, was “restoring to the States their plenary rights, property, jurisdiction, and control which they exercised question years without for 150 over lying areas within State boundaries.” It only, dealt he said, with area within “the States’ historic or constitu- tional boundaries.” Those who testified in favor the bill stated their objective way. the same Thus Secre- tary of the Interior McKay said:

“I do believe that the national interest would best served restoring to the various coastal offshore lands to the limits the fine marked 20Hearings before the Senate Committee Interior and Insular Affairs on S. J. Res. 13 and Other Bills, Cong., (hereafter 83d 1st Sess. cited as Hearings), Senate (Emphasis 31-32. supplied.) Hearings Senate 49. 22 Id.,

188 respective of each boundaries historical by the

States.” understand I and do believe, doubt, I no can There Senate proposed as that, question, to the Court by Senator Affairs Insular Interior Committee Submerged became others, bill which Holland and the States give to intended was unquestionably Act Lands far as the as at least going out lands the offshore title to all in filed A brief boundaries. historic respective States’ reported in the de- case shows in another Court this boundaries” “historic State term the bill the liberations on times, boundaries” times, “original used I take it that 114 times.24 Since boundaries “traditional” original purpose, see this was the concedes that Court all ante, to set forth pp. 153-154, I shall not bother hear- bill at the Senate proponents statements flatly hearings, as at House which stated ings, well purpose. that this itswas

III. We then fact that the bill as start from the conceded gave all the originally introduced California title to sub- merged boundaries, off to its historic its shore out might prove however, they Court, whatever be. The historic bound- pins denying its case California those “relevant,” fundamental, aries on what calls two indeed ante, p. prior bill to its changes, passage, made show says sponsors which the Court the bill’s sud- denly restoring their intent and decided instead of altered rights to California and other States mineral within their boundaries, historic to limit them to a three-mile or three- Administration, Id., 512. Unlike the Truman Eisenhower supported legislation grant rights Administration in sub mineral adjacent merged lands to offshore States. Texas, Louisiana, United States Brief of the State v. 363 U.S. 1, p. 50. lines” “coast along marginal waters

league strip pol- current according restrictively defined were to be State by the relations adhered icies of international history convinces legislative study A Department. the Court on which changes two making me that pur- to alter the way in no intended relies, the Senators to the States Holland bill to restore original pose historic within their submerged and lands all the waters vigorously They expressly, constitutional boundaries. was original purpose avowed that repeatedly and unchanged.

A. the Definition of The Removal of

“Inland Waters.” § 2 of the bill defined originally drafted, As Holland line,” as waters,” “inland which extended to the “coast including ports, straits,

“all estuaries, harbors, bays, channels, bays, historic all other bodies of sounds, and join open water which sea.” of unquestionably give This definition would course Cali- lying fornia title to all under its histori- cally recognized bays and straits as part California’s waters,” quite apart they might “inland from the fact that also lie within California’s boundary historic of inland marginal waters plus Deputy Legal sea. The Adviser Department the State legislative testified that such a definition of waters, though even limited to the purpose of the bill of affecting property rights between the United States States, purely and the “a mat- domestic ter,” might possibly embarrass the State Department in foreign if relations the Department asserted a dif- ferent definition of the words “inland waters” in its rela- Report See Senate 14. Hearings Senate (Senator Cordon). Compare Louisiana, States v. 363 U. S.

H** CO O warned Attorney General foreign nations.27 The with tions in words a few coastline attempt define the to a re- As litigation.28 than diminish might increase rather of the Commit- Acting Chairman Cordon, sult, Senator language hearings quoted tee, the conclusion at the Act said: purposes defining “inland waters” State De- language objectionable “That That Department Justice. partment and it, but reason to strike my opinion, isn’t, itself, in were sound. objections I that the opinion am the one that has been de- waters is matter of inland believe, not, I again by courts, time and time fined felt that but it was definition, all-inclusive one attempted legislative an the use of these words were it was waters,’ ‘inland of the term definition bill, is a transfer us in this inadvisable for field of law in the other attempt make title, what is or is not inland water.” language was that point explained At he another simply struck because sought get

“It into that field because was not you attempts in a to take where, were field then in our might put- purely matter, care of a domestic we be precedent with a ting the United States record domestically only apply which we intended but 30 internationally.” might applied He emphasized

“The language elimination of the still follows what philosophy the Chair of the understands be the 27 Id., Tate). (Deputy Legal Compare United States Adviser Louisiana, v. 363 U. S. 30-32. 28 Id., Attorney suggested 926. General Brownell that a line be part map a bill. drawn on as He said that if the Committee bays coast, tried “to describe in words or other characteristics unnecessary surely Ibid. litigation will almost result.” Hearings 29 Senate 1304.

30 Id., they bill, are where putting that we States thought not now to create they were, attempting or a for a evi- either situation in law basis rule of may not when may dence have been sound the States came into Union.” Senator Texas, leading Daniel of and sponsor advocate bill, said: agree

“I fully striking with the chairman that the these words was not done in manner to prejudice rights .... I want to state just that for the if record, this record is ever in the used future.” Senator proposed who had Cordon, the change, replied:

“I appreciate the statement of the and I Senator, concur in it, so far action taken here is concerned.” And Senator Anderson, another member the Commit- tee reporting bill, agreed: fully

“I Subscribe to what the chairman quite said ago awhile in pointing out that this bill does seek to take away from or add to the position of these States as they came into the Union.” When the bill reported out of pre- committee and Senate, sented its supporters made clear that Committee had made no change in original objective of restoring to the States everything within their historic boundaries. Senator Holland said it was an “obvious 35 fact” that the bill “giving to the States that which, without question, was enjoyed by them for 150 160

31Id., 1383.

32-Id., 1384.

33Ibid. 34Id., 1385.

35 Cong. Rec. 2746. State everything within namely, ownership

years, Government reserving the Federal to boundaries, and expressed Cordon beyond that.” Senator everything understanding his changed States cannot of the

“The boundaries We of the States. the consent by Congress without field, and in that legislatively anything do cannot measure. to so in this sought we have not do the dis- every one of “I answers all think that of the boundary lines with reference cussions are measured from including they whether States, some water, or high water, water, low island.”37 Holland said:

And Senator purpose general way summary, a brief “By and Insu- reported the Interior measure as of this confirm, estab- recognize, lar Affairs Committee assign respective and vest lish, and resources ownership of the lands the title and respective their within navigable waters beneath . .”38 . . boundaries explained: Daniel Senator

And never recently Government the Federal “Until lands, until now these and even thought it owned lands are The or used them. possessed has never passage States .... possession still in legislation simply per- will proposed pending always had they what have keep mit the States Union.” since the foundation the removal enough to show If that were not as a of the bill § waters from of inland the definition 36 Ibid.

37 Id., 2634. Id., 2744. (Emphasis supplied.) 39 Id., courtesy Departments to the State Justice was to have no effect, at the substantive the Senate Committee said beginning of its report on its version of the bill: emphasize

“The committee wishes to as will that, comparison seen from with the measure as intro- duced, changes primarily are of form and those language, the committee is consist- amendment ent throughout the philosophy with and intent of Joint Senate Resolution 13 as The only introduced. change in substance is section in which found jurisdiction and control of the Federal Govern- ment over the natural resources of the seabed of the Continental Shelf seaward of historic State bound- aries is confirmed.” Thus the continued intention to confer on all the States submerged lands within their “historic boundaries” was again reiterated. inAnd a specific reference the elim- ination of the definition of inland from 2,§ waters Report Committee said that the words had been deleted “because of the committee’s belief that question of what constitutes inland waters should be left where Congress finds it. The committee is convinced the definition neither adds nor away anything takes may a State have way now the a coast and the lands underneath waters behind it.” The Committee had report before it the of the Special very Master this case42 adopt criteria, and did not his based on the decision, for determining inland waters, criteria which Boggs included the formula for de- termining bays, many a formula which Senators indicated they disapproved Report spe- Committee cifically stated it did not mean to establish as the law. Report (Emphasis Senate supplied.) 2. 41 Id., (Emphasis supplied.) Hearings Senate 1211-1229. really of was that

Clearly position the the Committee to to States their claims only restoring about the cared boundaries, historic submerged lands within their and chan- bays, harbors lands, of included all the course coastlines— historic nels within those boundaries —their The Com- marginal sea.43 leagues miles or of and three attempt spell to out its definition saw no reason mittee and bays chan- waters, including of all historic as do and when to nels, when no reason to do so there was repercussions on embarrassing have might possibly so of foreign relations, different definitions American where reprinted report a Report of the favorable The Committee also during previous of bill which the Com a session a Senate Committee Resolution said in substance with Senate Joint mittee was “identical Rep. report, Report That as introduced.” 49. earlier S. Senate quoted, the Cong., Sess., No. 2d as criticised 80th California creating uncertainty great as what areas would decision opinion. the reasoning of the Under “inland waters” within the the federal-external-sovereignty reasoning of the case questions as: no Committee saw clear answer such open precise point bay part of the sea? “At what become a does uplands ? Are waters Are waters landward offshore islands inland of by fixing mark subsequent the low-water formed nature to the date subject power’ paramount United States as to ‘the the defined by Report opinion?” 61. the Court’s Senate sought legislation comr The in the to avoid these “extreme Committee plexities,” ibid., by enacting the law with what States “a consonant century Supreme the for more than a was and the Court believed property law,” ibid., restoring historic and to the States all their Report rights marginal The inland waters and to the sea. both to said: enacted, reported, confusion will exist as to

“Unless S. 1988 as taxability powers over, bays the ownership of, and the against public interest for the belt .... We consider it 3-mile Government to commence a series of vexatious lawsuits Federal against sovereign to recover lands within traditionally property States, upon as the boundaries looked century Supreme pronouncements Court the States under a Id., reflecting at 62. its belief these lands.” States owned prevailed. anyone inland waters Lest misconstrue reference to it: the Committee said with change, in committee’s “The elimination of the language, the Hol- opinion, philosophy is consistent with in which place position bill to the States land they thought both Government they and the Federal and not to century half, for more than a were respect with thereto.” create situations showing “a change The Court reads this words waters legislative intent to leave the definition of inland Ante, p. courts without restriction.” agrees change made, Court that before this the bill gave all the States the lands out to their his- toric boundaries. The Court admits that 1947 Cali- the decision rejected the States’ claims to their historic fornia and, according up boundaries set a test of Court, international law meas- foreign-policy standards for and uring inland waters. the concludes when Court that But the with leaving Committee said that it was the States rights they the inland waters which had before the to really meant to inter- decision, it establish the California standard, including Boggs (ex- national law the formula cept insofar as that formula has since been abandoned by treaty) many strenuously op- which Senators had so posed Report they specif- and which their Committee ically they did I that adopt. stated not mean to think reading change fair of this that discussion shows the Committee members intended all that the States should their mar- boundaries, including have a belt of ginal they sea and all from and waters which historically had marginal measured their claims to the sea, they recognized would have been thought up such the courts to time de- California cision, and that of inland waters and test coastlines regarded therefore an historical one. The Committee Report Senate and as- complete aberration, aas decision

the California judged courts would have sumed that before it all California tests, as in fact several by historical waters I cannot understand they had.45 show federal decisions said reasons that when Committee how Court thought they it were that it the States as left before in the put them really meant decision, it inso- says they case, position the Court were after are concerned. far and their coastlines as inland waters Committee just what the I that the amendment did think “having to Congress it from the need it did: freed said technical,” and left highly are determine matters that support if the facts to prove they could States particular were inland claims bodies their historic Kuchel of Cali- Senator waters behind coastline. California, fully problems familiar with the fornia, bays in the that State's interest protect the alert interpreted boundaries, channels within its historic he think, I when said: properly, bill ownership lands beneath recognizing “In State boundaries, historic within State navigable waters wisely attempt makes no this resolution joint are. In what those boundaries sub- exactly define provides that each stance, resolution navigable waters has of all lands beneath ownership geographi- 3 extending, States, in the of littoral case coastline, historic cal from its or its miles seaward boundary.”47 legislative history I think point

Thus to this up originally bill as (1) it can said that the Holland 45 infra, p. sponsors this 212. understood Court See “[T]he established, prior decision, a rule of state have ownership . .” defined in terms of state territorial boundaries . . itself Louisiana, 1, States v. U. 19-20. 363 S. (Senator Cordon). Hearings 1383 46 Senate 47 (Emphasis supplied.) Cong. Ree. 2984.

CO to all sub- title the States gave unquestionably drafted boundaries; historic as their as far merged lands out of inland legislative definition (2) the elimination in the of the bill original intent alter the waters did not the States up rather left degree, but slightest in- were or harbors bays, channels prove particular boundaries,” of their “historic part their coastlines side they and in which both position to “the according more than they were for thought Government Federal century and a half.” Three-League B. The Three-Mile Limitation. change in to one other calls attention Court significance enactment, and on the

the bill before validity change depends the to this one small attributed this says The Court opinion. of the Court’s entire says importance. of vital It change fundamental, change, philosophy of this “the that to the extent [of Ante, 154. I find this p. Holland was modified.” Bill] altogether change since when the was intro- surprising, adopted Senator Holland himself —and almost duced — said immediately any opposition being voiced, without he change verbiage,” it was a minor one of several “just 50 If changes “minor for the of clarification.” purpose change was to have the dramatic effect which the Court certainly recog- it, attributes to Senator Holland did it, depart slightest nize for he that it “not in the said did sponsors from the intention of the of the joint resolu- along adopted tion.” This amendment with others was occupying pages after discussion less than two in the Con- gressional Record, vote, without roll-call without even single one from floor. Fundamental objection the Senate Report supra, Senate n. 44. 49 Cong. Rec. 50Id., at 4114. 51Ibid. in adopted are never of bills

changes purpose in the basic this was that explanation Senator Holland’s way. by accepted change verbiage” should minor a “just by accepted it was no I have doubt Court, this as Senate. thought was “minor” sponsor which its change

This which fundamental, and on thinks and which the Court modified the merely depends, argument whole the Court’s adding: 2 of Act §in of “boundaries” definition term, or the 'boundaries’ in shall the “but no event interpreted waters’ be navigable beneath term ‘lands than three extending the coast line more as from or the Atlantic Ocean miles into the geographical leagues marine Ocean, more than three Pacific the Gulf Mexico.” into away language implicitly did says that this The Court pro- intention of the original with the and continued to the States owner- ponents of the bill to “restore” all within lying under waters of all ship lay, those boundaries boundaries, their historic wherever a that historic boundaries established rule instead they if extended more than three would not be honored e., edge i. from the seaward coastline, miles from the today as defines inland waters. the inland waters the Court destroy- legislative history The reads the Court then is, ing historic definition inland waters —which a all waters within State’s boundaries exclusive course, substituting very

claims restric- marginal sea—and tive one based this Court’s decision the California is, think, I I case, reading which have indicated above flatly contrary legislative history to what the shows. by making changes Court minor thus holds two changes they again were bill, said over over supporting of no significance, substantive the Senators silently large intention, repudiated in their own measure (1958 ed.). (b), (b) 67 Stat. 43 U. S. C. 1301 §2 § the Senate public to the they proclaimed had end, to to proclaim beginning and continued from the constitutional their historic the States restoring of to boundaries. amendment three-league limitation or

This three-mile in the plain which is reason, very simple was added for a sponsors that the and which shows Congressional Record abandoning their than reaffirming rather of the bill were similar bills: offering in this and original purpose basic submerged they to restore to the States the wished miles or including three boundaries, to historic out their marginal reported but no farther. As leagues sea, of submerged lands gave from the States Committee, bill they entered the to their at the time out boundaries approved by or hereafter Con “or as heretofore Union by some gress” any limitation. It was feared without or none of which had ever States, that one more mar (or leagues) claimed more than three miles ginal sea, might suddenly assert claims that their bound very limits aries out of miles to the extended hundreds If fear this, the Continental Shelf.53 allowed do taking was title to min expressed, such States would be eral wealth far historic boundaries to which beyond sponsors of the bill wished to confine them. sponsors merely that their to “restore” purpose stated they thought they to the States what had had had as part boundaries —the outer of the Continental Shelf was belong pre to the Federal In order to Government.54 any vent States from trying use the word “boundaries” push beyond the Act to their boundaries out their his 53See, g., Cong. 3040, 3336-3337, 2917, 2975-2977, 3273, e. Rec. 3381, 3549, 3655, 3552-3553, 3885-3886, 54Compare Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 67 Stat. (1958 passed year, claiming ed.), 43 U. S. C. 1331-1343 the same §§ control, power disposi “jurisdiction, the United States granted tion” of all lands seaward of the area the States Submerged in the Lands Act. sea, marginal three-league claims or

toric three-mile It amendment. this introduced Holland himself Senator limiting the States thus hereafter,” words “or deleted the claimed, previously had they any boundaries which future; make in the they might claims spite understand a limitation the Senators’ also forth as set histori marginal sea extent of maximum ing of its historic part by any State from cally claimed Atlantic and miles in the geographical three boundaries: Gulf Mexico. leagues three Oceans, Pacific and of existing a limitation explained, Holland As Senator all sponsors of been the intention the bill’s boundaries had understanding and along, it had been was and bound no States claimed that their historic sponsors that than miles from their coastlines aries extended more three or said three- in the Atlantic Pacific He Oceans. 55 verbiage” “just change mile limitation was minor very Congress this made in “to make clear that at order things seeking only time is to do those which the authors supporters very fully, and resolution have so joint repeatedly, and rather for the Record heretofore stated 56 during course of the debate.” He reiterated that simply “The amendment will indicate that this Senate, joint in the is cer- passage resolution, claims, tainly inviting not it additional knows 57 no additional claims.” Holland, Senator as the record other shows, many Senators well aware of existing claim, were California’s which is us, now before and could have considered 58 to be “additional.”

Time again proponents and time of the bill stated passed before amendment that no State claimed 55 Cong. Rec. 4115. 56Ibid. (Emphasis supplied.) Ibid. 58See, Hearings e. g., Senate 48-49. part sea marginal leagues or miles than three

more given would no State boundaries, of its historic Said claims. original those beyond bill by the rights joint this the fact that “I Holland, emphasize Senator any State boundary of not extend resolution does Daniel, again Said Senator 3-mile limit.” beyond the before the amendment: measure of this of us who are coauthors

“. . . those necessary to it was not always understood that have provision legislation specific pending write into the or 3 beyond miles, apply that it shall not to lands claiming miles, is 3 all are leagues, because the States historic bound- in the Gulf of Mexico where except leagues from shore.” aries are 3 He added: few exchange past

“I that the here within the believe make it clear that the authors very minutes should trying give States, are not this measure outside their States, to restore to historic boundaries.” The claims of the to a of waters marginal belt of course did not determine the location of the coastline from which such a belt would be measured. California’s historic coastline, says, bays it was the outer of limit limiting and islands. In the States to their historic claims of three miles leagues from their “coast three lines,” wherever those “coast fines” might be, Congress unquestionably, I think, leaving was totally undisturbed validity of their historic claims to the from boundaries which those belts would be measured.

59 Cong. Ree. 2746. 60 Id., 3039.

61 Id., opinion an on stress great lays opinion

The Court’s that claim California’s that Holland by Senator expressed sea marginal waters boundary of historic its islands its offshore beyond miles to and three extended out impression leaves The Court not persuasive. California’s that ruling Holland made that Senator In fact he did by the Act. covered claim would opinion merely expressed the but nothing kind, of restoring the States that who said opponents to the bill large an give too them to their historic boundaries would claim cited lands and who California’s area thought example, to the channel as an that he that historic proving time in its would have difficult Hol- boundary extended so far. The context Senator full, remarks is set out in since when important land’s repeated he opinion, his later read context occasions, that he intended emphasize several serves prove that each allowed where historic State be lay, asking all boundaries which is that California to do here, be allowed and which is what the Court now denies it. exchange began Long when Senator Louisiana

asked about far Senator Holland how seaward Louisiana’s boundary Long would extend the bill. Senator under said: if I

“Now, correctly, the is not understand Senator proposing exactly actual determination at boundary what was historic the time Louisiana into the came be decided but Congress, Union rather that question boundary of the histone might subject the State be one still actual judicial determination.

“Senator HOLLAND. course, Of Senator right. gen- cannot draft We

“Senator HOLLAND. legal every possible will still that legislation eral question.” asked Senator Mexico then Anderson New Senator claim of California whether the bill validated Holland offshore islands boundary extended that its historic them. To beyond marginal sea belt with three-mile replied: Holland this Senator his only give can from Florida “The Senator not, it would because opinion in his opinion, and between that great depths of the water exist from the and the extrusions coastline of California and some appear there, sea out bottom Again, the level of the water. which are above that though, Florida states that Senator from matter, naturally, on which the courts would going would be asked to rule. are not to find We of the courts displaces formula that the function go into cases and find which cases come within the general by legislation doctrine and which announced fall legislation.” without In words, other the bill did not definitively ques settle tion of fact as to whether boundary California’s historic was to be from rim measured the outer of the islands. a question That was on which courts would have to hear evidence general and then decide to “the doc according trine legislation” announced doctrine, as [this] —the Senator so repeated many times, Holland and others the States were to be restored to their “historic bound aries.” And as he said in summary, nothing there was in his bill which would diminish claim to the California’s waters around offshore islands.64 Hearings (Emphasis supplied.) Senate 63 Id., (Emphasis supplied.) 48-49.

64 Id., 50-51.

204 Holland’s Senator adoption referring to the

In later said, “the of Texas Daniel bill, to the Senator amendment resolu joint into the specifically to write intention be its along all would have said the authors tion what the historic within land only it covered effect —that boundaries.” three-miles-from-coast- indication that the As a further claims to affect States’ was not intended line amendment oppo- that record shows boundaries, their historic restrict to amend bill tried subsequently nents of the limits would be meas- three-mile the line from Illinois, a Douglas of leader failed. Senator ured, and which would an amendment opposition, proposed line” in the bill so the definition of “coast changed have only from the miles measured that the three would be any islands, thus continent, and around separately main lands be- cutting off California’s claim largely which is mainland, and the tween the islands specifi- Douglas us now. Senator indicated issue before was intended to his amendment cally proposed that submerged lands, and destroy claim to those California’s of California of his he had warned Senator Kuchel that Long it.66 Senator Louisiana intention to introduce submitting “the Senator from Illinois his objected Douglas’ waters.” Senator own definition of inland defeated,68 and historic amendment was California’s id., (remarks Cong. Senator Rec. 4175. See also Daniel). 66 Id., Douglas 4240. that his amendment was aimed Senator said “preventing at pushing from their coastal States coastal boundaries along claiming out to a line outer shores remote islands and Id., everything in between.” 4242. 67 Id., 4241. 68 Id., attempt by Douglas An earlier Senator and others strike from bill reference to the boundaries of the historic they Union, when entered the substitute a limitation marginal based claimed Federal Government waters claims, they might prove whatever to be were worth, left, as Senator Holland stated, had undiminished.

I think hearings this review of the relevant debates in the things: Senate makes clear three As (1) originally proposed, the bill was intended to “restore” to the States to submerged title lands within their historic boundaries, might whatever prove (2) those to be. The removal of explicit definition of waters, far from being, as the it, Court views was not a fundamental, 69 “change of substance” any and was “not done in man- ner to prejudice rights of the States”;70 it was in- merely tended to possible avoid in embarrassment field of international relations from a bill which had noth- under law, international Cong. had also failed. See 99 Bee. 3957- objected 4114. Senator Cordon had that the result” of “net arbitrary amendment “would be that an 3-mile limit would estab- lished, rather philosophy than to follow joint resolution itself. provides The resolution statutory that the limit be the bound- ary with Union, which a State boundary may entered the or as such subsequently approved by have been Congress.” an act of the 99 Cong. Rec. 4106. attempts by opponents

Several similar of the bill to amend to restrict the States to a belt within three miles of their mainland shores Monroney also failed. Senator introduced an amendment to limit the area restored to the States to three miles seaward of the low-tide Cong. mark on the shore. 99 Long, supporter Rec. 4157. Senator (which already the bill changes contained the two which the Court says fundamental) protested: were “In Congress already view of the fact that has indicated its vesting intention of proprietary rights in the States within their his- boundaries, toric any objection does the Senator have to the Court’s deciding what the Cong. historic boundaries are?” 99 Rec. 4160. proposed The Cong. amendment was defeated. 99 Rec. 4203. A similar measure Magnuson, empha- introduced Senator which he sized would have marginal limited the States to the amount of sea which the United States relations, claimed in international was like- Cong. wise defeated. 99 Rec. 4473-4478. Report Senate Hearings (Senator Daniel). Senate law, relations or international ing to do with international (3) addition of title.” being merely “transfer beyond the to miles boundaries three the limitation of fundamen- it, views far as the Court coastline, being, from to verbiage” intended change of a minor tal, “just all sponsors had intended make what the bill’s clear designed allow States along: bill was not out the limits push their boundaries the future everything them to but rather limit Shelf, Continental coast- boundaries, including historic within their historic three-league or claims lines and historic three-mile marginal beyond. sea bill debates on the Senator

Near the conclusion explaining purpose words, used these Holland perceptible I do think show fundamental even had changes from those he philosophy or modifications of bill: speech in on the used his first sim- Resolution 13 “The truth is that Senate Joint submerged gives to the States the restores or back ply they within their historic boundaries developed good faith used and possessed, have . . years. . over 100 for the future as it . . It would write law

“. by restoring to exist in the past was believed navigable all lands beneath waters within States 73 historic their boundaries.” Legislative History. C. The House hearings The less and debates the House were exten- Senate, sive than those in the but the intention of the legislators submerged the States all there restore to 71 Id., (Senator Cordon). 1304

72 (Senator Holland). Cong. Rec. 4115 73 Id., explicit. was no less historic boundaries lands within their with one74 identical bills, of which Forty different Houses the passed by both Joint Resolution the Senate by introduced Sen- with Senate bill year before and by the House Subcommit- Holland, ator were considered latter chose the The Committee tee and Committee. reported perfecting amendments bill and with minor testimony at Typical of favorably to the House.75 Attorney General by statement hearings was the Brownell that: they are entitled and we believe want,

“The States in these rights, you might say, to, development all the their historic boundaries.” lands within bill said: Report House Committee rights II and establishes “Title confirms and exercised them States, asserted claims of lands beneath country’s history, to the throughout our and the State boundaries within navigable waters waters.” within such lands and resources House, Con- the members of the explaining In the bill to a member of Committee gressman Louisiana, Willis bill, said: and a supporter complete title to the “First, it restores to up to the of their historic submerged lands limit boundaries.” 74 Rep. 215, 83d 2948, Cong., 1st Sess. See H. R. No. H. R. 83d (hereafter Report), 3. Cong., 1st Sess. cited as House 4198, Cong., 83d 1st Sess. H. R. 76Hearings 1, on the No. House Committee before Subcommittee Cong., Sess., Judiciary, Bills, 83d 1st on H. R. 2948 and Similar 219-220. Report House 78 Cong. Rec. 2504. Texas, also Wilson Congressman the floor

And on bill, explained supporter member and Committee exchange: following in the purpose . . . in mind that Bear of Texas. “Mr. WILSON or restores this returns II, is the title title that this boundaries boundary within the historical seaward .... the States provisions If stick to “Mr. HALLECK. we being consistent with just we are bill, then land historic title to the within the respect boundaries? Texas. That true.” “Mr. WILSON intention, was then sent passed with this bill, The House considering Senator which at time was Senate, After the virtually identical measure. bill, Holland’s changes bill, with the two the Holland passed Senate fundamental, Congressman Reed, which the Court deems Judiciary Committee, which had of the House Chairman members of the House reported bill, the House asked the Senate. He by to their bill as amended accede saying: prefaced by his remarks “Mr. I that 3 minutes will be suffi- Speaker, trust necessary all I about say cient for me to deem resolution.” this tell the members He then these words to proceeded happened adopted of the House what had their bill as by the Senate: are original bill, I II of H. R.

“Titles now before us. There have been no substantial They changes made the Senate these titles. practically passed by are as when the House same 79Id., 2567.

80Id., 4897.

except in few instances where few words and phrases here and have been or deleted changed there for clarification. the only thing substantially

“About new in this bill is a in by reassertion the Senate section which confirms the rights the States to the jurisdiction and control of the lands under the Con- tinental Shelf outside of State boundaries.” Relying on by these assurances Chairman that there Reed been changes” had “no substantial by made in the bill the Senate, House the without further of the discussion portions of bill the proceeded adopt here involved version, Senate being signed after by the President became Submerged Lands Act of 1953.

This, is the then, legislative history Submerged of the Lands in Act, both House, which, Senate and according to the Court, sponsors shows that the and sup- porters of completely the Act altered their intention of restoring to States submerged lands within their historic boundaries, and instead left the States with what allows I today. Court them think that the state- ments actions of bill supporters show on the contrary that the restoring intention of all lands under all waters within historic state boundaries was plainly and explicitly stated all from and understood the beginning, and, despite attacks from opponents bill, never varied. Time again and time the Senators Congressmen repeated bill changed that the had not been in any way rights granted diminish the originally rights the bill as which, as the introduced — dispute, right Court does not included the all submerged lands under historic all waters within state boundaries. I understanding would follow the and sup- authors porters bill, and I take their would them at word. Ibid. supplied.) (Emphasis

IV. have set I of which history, legislative of this light In. Submerged that under I think only part, small forth a submerged to all entitled is Act California Lands be should that it boundaries, its historic lands within a hearings before in prove to try to an given opportunity Court were. boundaries historic where those Master expound Court to this up left it to Congress says that claims, California’s determine which shall legal principles Act’s Lands Submerged to the any reference without rights of the States mineral to restore the purpose stated I historic boundaries. within their in misreading intentions completely is think the Court any- If there is the Act. supporters of the authors Congress is that legislative history, it thing in the clear had way in which this Court was satisfied with the not approve not case and did decided the California in sovereignty there deter- of external used considerations to me the title. It seems mining dispute a over domestic passed expressly Act to height irony to hold that an in this -field escape opinion the effect of this Court’s leaving principles now us free to announce construed Congress directly purpose antithetic to the basic deciding that all. question True, itself once and for Congress historic left the courts the exercise of their function to decide the of where question factual State’s boundaries, approved historic based on those when it was admitted lie. I Union, But think the Court errs arguing repeatedly by leaving that it to the courts to Congress decide the issues of fact in particular cases, legal meant to leave it to this prin- Court to determine the ciples governing claim, particular California’s and in by do so adopting a formula of its devising own based on one used Department handling State in its (cid:127) foreign affairs. given has an opportunity never been boundaries

appear hearing where its at determine 13-year-old it were when came into the Union. The report naturally Master this issue quite considered Submerged irrelevant Lands Act had been since passed Certainly time report at the made. cannot asserted that claim its 1849 California’s By areas boundaries included these is frivolous. terms of approved by Congress its constitution when the State was over admitted to the Union years, appears California have its to claimed that bound- beyond aries outlying extended its has claimed islands and as inland waters within the bays, those boundaries all harbors and channels in in lawsuit. A question this original statement in the Constitution,82 sev- eral maps, official including one used at the Cali-

82 1849, approved Article XII of the California Constitution of (Act Sept. 9, 1850, when the State admitted to the Union of 452), provides: Stat. boundary

“The of the State of California shall follows: be as “Commencing point forty-second degree at the of intersection of of degree north with longi- latitude the one hundred and of twentieth running tude Greenwich, west from and south on the line of said degree longitude one of hundred and twentieth west it until intersects thirty-ninth degree latitude; of running straight north thence in a southeasterly point line in a Colorado, direction to the river at a thirty-fifth degree latitude; where it intersects thence north boundary-line down the middle of said channel river to the Mexico, treaty between States and as established May 1848; 30, running along boundary-line thence west and said Ocean, extending English miles; the Pacific and therein three thence running northwesterly direction, in following and the direction of the forty-second coast, degree latitude; Pacific to the of north thence on forty-second degree place line of said of north latitude to beginning. islands, harbors, bays along adja- Also all the and and cent (Emphasis supplied.) coast.” H. R. Doc. No. Pacific 357, Cong., Sess., 59th 2d California contends that the inclusion of off the islands the shore also includes within the boundaries all waters islands between the and the mainland. other 1849,83 and in convention

fornia constitutional contention support California’s tend evidence between channel and the bays these historically owned and federal Both state mainland. and the the islands law a matter fact held as have court decisions here, which the bays very question in some of the inter- waters argues are not inland Government of the State the boundaries sense, within national were Industries, Inc. v. Ocean its subject jurisdiction. Bay); Cal.) (Monterey Greene, C. D. (D. 2d 862 N. 15 F. (D. Carrillo, S. D. C. Supp. v. 13 F. United States Stralla, 617, 14 Cal. 2d v. Cal.) (San Bay); People Pedro Industries, Inc. Bay); Monica Ocean (Santa P. 2d 941 (Monterey Court, P. Superior v. 200 Cal. Stralla, People v. cases, of these Bay). Indeed, in one Attorney with the authorization supra, the United States Attorney appeared as General the United attorney that agreeing with the State’s amicus curiae was within Cali- bay all of there here question territorial exclusive subject fornia’s boundaries jurisdiction.84 his- may disprove

There which tends to be evidence validity toric of claims. But what Califor- California’s prove nia has an where opportunity asked here is to its of historically were, ownership boundaries to use the test by Congress Submerged fixed Act rather than in the Lands up by Special the tests Master foreign-relations set the years 13 ago by today and this for the approved Court legislative history first time. I think that the of the Sub- merged question Lands Act shows without that the defi- preserving nitions in it were to read as to maritime be the within submerged States their claims to lands and waters 83Reproduced part Appendix D, in in infra. Attorney, People The brief of the filed sub nom. v. United States Adams, reprinted Appendix as for the of Cali Brief State pp. Proceedings Special Master, in fornia the Before the 6-22. and that those who offered boundaries, their historic and to these regarded the bill California’s claim supported to islands bays, and the channel out its offshore harbors to something try prove. State would allowed to limits In to determine the extent of the outer litigation of in in marginal the States’ historic sea boundaries Mexico, allowed to the Gulf of Texas and Florida were prove their historic and won in States boundaries United Louisiana, Florida, v. 1, S. and United v. U. Louisiana, Mississippi, respectively. U. S. Alabama based their claims in the Gulf of Mexico on his- toric them on against boundaries this Court decided Louisiana, the facts in United of supra. States v. All five were given opportunity try prove those States an to their in boundaries, historic order determine the extent they lands to which were entitled Submerged Lands Act. California has no such had opportunity. up California set as an affirmative defense its 1946 that boundaries point pres- extended ently claims. We did not on this pass then, contention regardless we held of where the historic bound- aries were, paramount rights the United States had all marginal sea. The today Court still leaves the question State’s undecided, historic boundaries ex- cept insofar as relevant to international claims States, and instead decides this case basis standards international law derived from the reason- ing of Congress not, case. I think, did mean readopt case, standards the California which the authors of Submerged Lands Act so vio- lently criticized, and to cut California off without chance at all to establish ownership bays of these by proving channels they were within the State’s historic boundaries. In to carry order I out what believe to be congressional command in the Lands Submerged Act, I would refer Special the case to a give Master California that chance.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. California

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: May 17, 1965

Citation: 381 U.S. 139

Docket Number: 5 ORIG

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS