395 



easements, other licenses, and permits. Questionable surveys and dubi- 

 ous colonial and precolonial land grants further complicate the situa- 

 tion. The private interests who acquired ownership or use rights often 

 proceeded to improve and develop the land through dredging and 

 filling. 



Thus, judicial clarification by each State is needed for such owner- 

 ship questions as — ^are these titles still valid ? Is the sold land still sub- 

 ject to the public trust ? Can the State revoke licenses it granted and on 

 what grounds? 



SUBMERGED LANDS : STATES VERSUS FEDERAL. GOVERNMENT 



Several court decisions and congressional acts have failed to settle 

 definitely the question of Federal versus State jurisdictions over sub- 

 merged lands, minerals, and ocean islands. In 1947, in United States 

 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, in 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 was under Federal 

 jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this law failed to clarify several questions 

 of ownership, taxation, and regulation. For example, how the sea- 

 ward boundary or island waters are defined is unclear. 



Litigation has attempted to settle the question of measurement from 

 artificial jetties and in relation to river deltas and islands. There is, 

 however, still some jurisdictional uncertainty over the submerged lands 

 surrounding some islands and over man-made lands and emerging 

 islands. 



A supplemental decree of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 established 

 California's offshore ownership boundary line. The ownership bound- 

 ary extends 3 geographical miles seaward from the coastline. Much 

 difficulty is associated with the establishment of the exact location of 

 this line. In addition to the problem of establishing the line, the base 

 line for measuring the State's boundary is the "outermost permanent 

 harbor works." Disputes have arisen over the interpretation of this 

 phase. Another problem has to do with the State's seaward boundary 

 in the Chamiel Islands area off the southern California coast. These 

 jurisdictional problems are extremely important for planning and 

 management of the coastal area and financially, because of royalties 

 from oil leases and other developments of the submerged lands. 



These difficulties point up the need for an organization to handle 

 such boundary disputes on a national level or a higher-than- State 



