The Oregon Surveyor | Vol. 39, No. 3 14 CONTRASTING BOUNDARIES of very signicant proportions, which signalized the rising power of the coastal states, and of California in particular, providing those states with a nancial windfall, by shiing a very substantial amount of revenue derived from oil and gas extraction from federal control to state control. e full text of this landmark Act can be readily obtained through the web at no charge by means of a keyword search. 5) In 1960, just seven years aer the arrival of the Submerged Lands Act, the case of United States v Louisiana (363 US 1) required SCOTUS to cogitate upon the fundamental nature and purpose of the OSB, in the process of adjudicating a dispute focused upon the interaction and tension that existed between the plain language of the Act and historically based popular notions regarding coastal boundaries throughout the Gulf Coast region. In so doing, SCOTUS observed that “A land boundary between two states is an easily understood concept ... the concept of a boundary in the sea, however, is a more elusive one. e high seas ... are subject to the exclusive sovereignty of no single nation ... however, a nation may extend its national authority into the adjacent sea to a limited distance ... a country is entitled to full territorial jurisdiction over a belt of waters adjoining its coast ... however, this jurisdiction is limited ... such a boundary ... confers rights more limited than a land boundary”. us SCOTUS communicated the view that determining the position of all ocean boundaries of sovereign states and nations represents a distinct portion of the spectrum of boundary law, since such boundaries must be evaluated from a jurisdictional perspective and must be governed accordingly. 6) e 1986 Submerged Lands Act amendment, approving the use of coordinates as a means of dening any portion of the OSB, was not merely a Congressional directive, it actually signied Congressional acceptance of an established judicial practice. By 1986, SCOTUS had already adopted the use of coordinates as a valid means of describing boundaries of the kind represented by the OSB, viewing coordinates as a legitimate option for that purpose, in the light of modern technological advances, which in the eyes of the Court made coordinate geometry a reasonably reliable tool, suitable for use in the identication of boundaries. e 1975 SCOTUS decree in the case of United States v Louisiana (422 US 13) provides an example of such use of coordinates, in a manner that is directly comparable to their role in the aforementioned 2014 SCOTUS decree. 7) e federal legislation which instituted and enabled the well known but highly controversial “railbanking” concept presents a particularly poignant example of Congressional action which has been judicially conrmed to constitute a compensable taking of private land rights for a public purpose, applicable to multiple locations nationwide. Numerous cases are available for further reading on this topic, the 2012 Federal Claims Court case of omas v United States (106 Fed Cl 467) which refers the reader to numerous prior cases of the same nature, being one particularly good recent example. 8) If controversy involving the exact location of the OSB were to arise in the context of privately held land rights, any such litigation would most likely result from the presence of rights acquired by holders of leases, issued under either state or federal authority. Land rights of lease holders distinctly dier from those of fee title holders, since the rights of lessees are wholly dependent upon the rights held by the party or entity that issued the lease. erefore, even a dispute involving the rights held by one or more private parties or corporations operating as lessees near the OSB would not equate to a contest between typical holders of private fee title, since such litigation could not proceed without representation of the state and federal fee interests. 9) California suered an overall defeat on this occasion, but did not lose on every point, for example SCOTUS agreed with California that Monterey Bay represented inland water, and also agreed that the “line of ordinary low water” along the mainland coast, referenced in the 1953 Act, was properly determined by utilizing only the lower of the two daily low tides, rather than all of the low tides, identifying that line as the “lower low water line”, while recognizing that any such line is obviously subject to continual uctuation from natural causes. Like the 1947 SCOTUS ruling previously discussed herein, this ruling was dissented by two Justices. e position taken by the dissenters, along with many aspects of the majority position, are not referenced here, in the interest of brevity. Readers desiring more detailed information are encouraged to review the full text of this case and the resulting decree (381 US 139 & 382 US 448) as well as the others cited herein, all of which are readily available to the public at no charge through various internet sources. 10) An illustrated 14 page essay, entitled “Fixing California’s Submerged Lands Act Boundary—A Federal- State Success Story”, produced by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an agency within the US Department of the Interior, dated 12/29/15, is feely available to all on the web. is publication features a broad overview of coastal boundary issues, providing important historical context, along with detailed information about the role of technology in the development and renement of coastal boundaries in the modern era, all of which is presented in a format that can be readily appreciated by surveyors and non-surveyors alike. e author, Brian Portwood, is a licensed professional land surveyor, a federal employee, and the author of the Land Surveyor’s Guide to the Supreme Court series of books, devoted to advanced professional education focused upon eective conceptualization of the nexus and interaction between title and boundary law.
PLSO May June 2016
To see the actual publication please follow the link above