13 Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon | www.plso.org CONTRASTING BOUNDARIES » continues on next page » of such a line. We can only hope that the utilization of coordinates in the OSB cases will be properly appreciated by those who will adjudicate boundaries in the future, and that the very limited value of these cases as judicial precedent will be recognized. Nonetheless, the rulings of SCOTUS regarding boundary issues rooted in the Submerged Lands Act have been both rational and appropriate, as was wisely observed in the June and November articles, being based upon sound application of historically established boundary principles. In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that the author of the rst in the series of 2015 articles focused on the OSB deserves credit for presenting this matter to his fellow professionals, and for the educational value cascading from it we are all indebted to him. e author of the second article must be credited for properly addressing the matter at hand in historical context with genuine wisdom, and for successfully taking a position directly contrary to that of a professional colleague while maintaining complete decorum in so doing. e author of the third article is worthy of credit for astutely recognizing that this matter provided a ne opportunity to emphasize the relevance and signicance of the boundary agreement concept, which ranks among the most important, yet also the most neglected, principles of law and equity. As Omar Khayyam so wisely observed several centuries ago “the moving nger writes, and all of our tears cannot wash out a word of it”, reminding us that time is unmerciful to those who neglect to act promptly, and that the urgencies of today will invariably soon fade away, rapidly eclipsed by other sources of urgency. Although some surveyors have only recently taken notice of the arguably objectionable manner in which Congress and SCOTUS have seen t to allow coordinate geometry to be leveraged for purposes of boundary delineation and description, a well-established body of precedent to that eect has now stood for many years as a part of our boundary law and has thus become well solidied. If ever there was any real opportunity for the land surveying community to take some form of action to prevent judicial approval of coordinate based boundary control, that day has long passed. e best case scenario going forward is now one in which the importance of complete metadata, bringing enhanced certainty to coordinated boundaries, may yet be successfully communicated to our judiciary, thereby enhancing the ecacy of boundary litigation that is yet to come. Footnotes 1) e illustrious gentlemen who directly participated in the public discussion relating to boundary establishment that played out in 2015, by contributing material for publication in printed form, listed in the order in which their articles on this topic appeared, Mike Pallamary, Chuck Karayan and Evan Page, are all based in the west and have all long been recognized as leaders of the land surveying profession. Although their educational eorts have been outstanding and should certainly be celebrated, the primary purpose here is not to applaud their individual achievements, or to compare and contrast the knowledge possessed by each of them, the objective here is to emphasize the benet, in terms of educational value, that all open dialog focused on advanced subject matter holds for the land surveying profession collectively. 2) e full text of each of the articles referenced herein can be readily obtained at www.amerisurv.com. Everyone with an interest in such matters is encouraged to read these articles, with high appreciation for both the expertise of the authors, and their willingness to invest their valuable time in the furtherance of professional education. 3) is 1947 SCOTUS decision (332 US 19) which was dissented by 2 Justices, expressly denied the assertion, set forth by California, that the primary value or signicance embodied in the OSB pertains to title or ownership of the relevant portion of the ocean oor, and must therefore be based upon the Equal Footing Doctrine. In so ruling, SCOTUS stated “e crucial question ... is not merely ... bare legal title ... the United States here asserts rights ... transcending those of a mere property owner ... it asserts ... power and dominion necessary to protect this country ... also its capacity as a member of the family of nations ... it asserts that ... constitutional responsibilities require that it have ... control and use of the marginal sea and the land under it.”. us SCOTUS clearly regarded the OSB as fundamentally jurisdictional in nature, expressly rejecting the suggestion that it should be treated as a typical boundary between adjoining title holders. Quite interestingly, this same judicial rationale or paradigm, intermingling governmental authority or control over water with the title status of bedlands in the course of adjudication, has historically had, and still has today, a profound impact upon American jurisprudence in the realm of navigability litigation, but for now we must leave that fascinating issue to be more deeply explored upon another day. 4) e Submerged Lands Act was originally codied as 67 Stat 29, aka Public Law 31 in 1953. It was last amended in 1986, under Title VIII of 100 Stat 82, aka Public Law 99-272, and since that time has been typically referenced as 43 USC 1301, et seq. Interestingly, Congress actively sought to nullify the 1947 SCOTUS ruling against California prior to 1953, passing a bill to that eect which was vetoed by President Truman during the nal months of his presidency. e election of President Eisenhower, who was more inclined toward limiting federal rights and jurisdiction, altered the balance of power in 1952 however, leading to the adoption of the Act in 1953, which represented a major victory for the coastal states in the land rights arena. e Act marked an economic triumph
PLSO May June 2016
To see the actual publication please follow the link above