The long history of States assuming they owned 

 such lands, and Federal acquiescence in such 

 claims, ended in 1947 when the United States 

 Supreme Court decreed that: 



The United States of America is now, and has been 

 at all time pertinent hereto, possessed of para- 

 mount rights in, and full dominion and power 

 over, the lands, minerals and other things, under- 

 lying the Pacific Ocean lying seaward of the 

 ordinary low-water mark on the coast of California 

 and outside of the inland waters [in the marginal 

 sea]. . . The State of California has no title 

 thereto or property interest therein.^ ^ 



Rationale for the distinction between the title 

 claimed in coastal territorial waters and that 

 claimed in inland waters was explained to be that 

 the contiguity of the territorial seas to the 

 international realm of the high seas makes the 

 subjection and control of such areas significant to 

 matters of defense and foreign relations, which are 

 National, not State, concerns.*^ "The United 

 States here asserts rights in two capacities tran- 

 scending those of a mere property owner," those 

 of guardian of National safety and of membership 

 in the international community. 



United States v. California was first in a 

 succession of major cases concerning ownership 

 and boundaries of submerged lands surrounding 

 the United States, and was directly related to the 

 subsequent Submerged Lands Act* '' by which the 

 Congress gave the States title to the bed and 

 natural resources of the territorial sea within their 

 boundaries, with certain limitations and excep- 

 tions. 



In summary, these cases held: that Louisiana's 

 claims to ownership of the land and resources in 

 the marginal sea within its boundaries were con- 

 trolled by the California decision;*' and that 

 when Texas transferred its national sovereignty to 

 the United States, that transfer included owner- 

 ship of the submerged land of the territorial sea 

 which had been an incident of the sovereignty of 



^'^ United States V. California, 332 U.S. 804 (1947). The 

 opinion in this case is found at 332 U.S. 19 (1947). 



the Republic of Texas.** Applying the negative 

 implication of the "equal footing" clause in the 

 Texas case, the Court said: 



JJie "equal footing" clause prevents extension of 

 the sovereignty of a State into a domain of 

 political and sovereign power of the United States 

 from which the other States have been excluded, 

 just as it prevents a contraction of sovereignty 

 /'Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, supra^ which would 

 produce inequality among the States.^'' 



Following the California case, a Special Master 

 was appointed by the Supreme Court, directing 

 him to answer questions as to principles to be 

 followed in determining two basic issues: (1) 

 identification of the line of ordinary low water, 

 which marks the seaward limit of the State's 

 tidelands, over which the State held title, and (2) 

 identification of the outer limit of inland waters, 

 marking the seaward hmit of CaUfornia's wholly 

 submerged lands, defining seven particularly 

 important or difficult coastal segments. 



Although the Special Master submitted his 

 report in 1952, several years passed before the 

 Supreme Court took action on the exceptions to 

 his report, during which the Congress passed the 

 Submerged Lands Act*^ and the Outer Conti- 

 nental Shelf Lands Act,*^ which profoundly 

 affected the course of the California and other 

 States' litigation. 



1. The Submerged Lands Act 



Basically, the Submerged Lands Act recognizes 

 State ownership of tidelands and lands beneath 

 inland navigable waters, and gives the States title 

 to the lands and natural resources within their 

 boundaries, subject to certain limitations and 

 exceptions. In the operative part releasing and 

 reUnquishing all right, title, and interest in such 

 lands and natural resources, the Act deals with (1) 

 title to and ownership of the lands and natural 

 resources, and (2) the right and power to manage 

 and use them, to provide separabiBty of the 



63 



64, 



332 U.S. at 35-36. 



-Act of May 22, 1953, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C. 

 1301-1315(1964). 



^^ United States v. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 (1950). 



^^ United States y. Texas, 339 U.S. 699 (1950). 



*''339 U.S. at 719-720 [emphasis added] . 



Note 64, supra. 



*'Act of August 7, 1953, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U.S.C. 

 1331-1343. 



III-116 



