Contrasting Boundaries of Title and Boundaries of Jurisdiction in the Context of the Federal Submerged Lands Act How the purpose which a boundary is intended to serve can operate as a distinguishing factor in the determination of appropriate boundary establishment principles and methodology. Scholarly discourse and thought provoking debates are 7 Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon | www.plso.org CONTRASTING BOUNDARIES „ Brian Portwood, PLS among the hallmarks of the learned professions, and eective communication of the collective knowledge base of any profession is essential to its perpetuation. During the year 2015 such an exchange of knowledge and thoughts took place, between a few highly respected senior practitioners of the land surveying profession, in a particularly public forum, demonstrating once again that this profession benets from the presence of some very erudite and highly astute individuals at the leadership level, who have made a genuine commitment to professional education. While the primary focus of any land surveying curriculum must necessarily be technical in nature, as the adoption in recent years of the term “geomatics” by many leading educators suggests, it is arguably equally important to cultivate the development of thought leaders within each succeeding generation. Free and open debate, of the kind referenced here, not only supports the ongoing education of mature professionals, but perhaps even more importantly provides a vital source of motivation, for those who have only recently entered the professional arena, introducing them to advanced material and encouraging them to embark upon their own course of advanced learning. One of the most rewarding aspects of a career in the land surveying profession is the abundance of opportunities for lifelong learning which it aords to all, and the basic premise set forth here is that every professional has a duty to be appreciative of the intrinsic value of the educational eorts of his or her colleagues, even when diverging thoughts and ideas arise from such interaction, as they inevitably must (FN 1). As is so oen the case, the discussion referenced above developed from observations made by a highly respected senior land surveyor, who felt compelled to express concern about the potential legal implications of a certain matter involving boundary determination and adjudication upon the methodology employed in the practice of boundary surveying. In December of 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) once again found itself guratively immersed in the waters of the Pacic Ocean, as a long running controversy styled United States v California, which has been periodically litigated for well over half a century, returned to the Court requiring further judicial attention. Judicial approval of various aspects of the boundary resolution thus nalized in 2014 proved to be troubling to this richly experienced California surveyor, who diligently enumerated several aspects of the judicial treatment of the matter, which he viewed as problematic, in an article which appeared in March of 2015 (FN 2). e specic boundary which was at issue between the US and California in this case is widely known as the “oshore boundary” (OSB) signifying the maximum oceanward extent of each coastal state, and it lies roughly three miles beyond land’s end along the California mainland coast. Along with numerous issues of a purely technical nature, regarding the proper positioning of this underwater boundary, which are bypassed here in the interest of brevity, the initial article in this series examining the OSB suggested that the boundary approved by SCOTUS in 2014 appeared to be directly at odds with the highest and strongest concept in the entire realm of boundary establishment, the principle of monument control. In June of 2015, a response to the March article arrived, penned by one of our nation’s most highly respected land surveying educators, and this article presented a distinctly contrary view of the matter. e author of the second article in this series, bringing extensive knowledge of the history and development of the law to the table, astutely explained the historical basis for the SCOTUS position, and thereby demonstrated why it was not problematic in his eyes. As he very wisely recognized, although boundary issues typically have title implications, and are inextricably tied to title issues under most circumstances, the genesis of the boundary at issue here indicated otherwise. Most boundaries, being typical private lines of division, are created to facilitate the independent use of adjoining lands that are suitable for separate conveyance, but not all boundaries are created to serve as divisions of title, and one readily recognizable alternate boundary function is to segregate and limit jurisdictional authority and control. e concept that the OSB is primarily jurisdictional in nature is well supported by the fact that the origin of the litigation in question is embedded in jurisdictional uncertainty, which clearly motivated the federal action that ultimately required the recent boundary clarication judicially approved by SCOTUS. In 1947, the High Court rst tackled the question of whether California or the US held the superior right to issue leases within the zone known as the “three mile marginal belt”, extending westward from the California shoreline. Although rights held by private companies operating as lessees within the submerged area were among those at stake, that was not seen by SCOTUS as a » continues on next page »
PLSO May June 2016
To see the actual publication please follow the link above