SUBMERGED LANDS: STATES VS. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 



Several court decisions and Congressional acts have failed to 

 settle definitely the question of Federal vs. State jurisdictions 

 over submerged lands, minerals, and ocean islands. In 1947, in 

 U. S. vs. California (332 U.S. 1947), the Supreme Court ruled 

 that the Federal Government and not the State had paramount rights 

 in the submerged lands and oil found under it in offshore navigable 

 waters. This displacement of State regulatory authority in the 

 3-mile belt off the coastline was subsequently applied to Louisiana 

 and Texas by the Court. The Supreme Court's decision in issuing 

 this opinion states that: 



"California is not the owner of the 3-mile marginal 

 belt along its coast, and . . . the Federal Government 

 rather than the State has paramount rights in and power 

 over that belt, an incident which has full dominion 

 over the resources of the soil under that water area, 

 including oil ." 



To offset these so-called tideland-oil rulings. Congress passed the 

 Submerged Lands Act of 1953 which generally gave the States title 

 to the lands, minerals, and other resources underlying the navigable 

 waters within 3 miles off the coast; beyond that it v/as under 

 Federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this law failed to clarify several 

 questions of ownership, taxation, and regulation. For example, 

 how the seaward boundary or island waters are defined is unclear. 



