the mouth of the bay, or the sum of such lines if 

 there is more than one mouth. If the mouth of the 

 bay is over 24 miles wide, the closing line is drawn 

 within the bay so as to enclose the greatest 

 possible amount of water with a line not over 24 

 miles long. Historic bays are not subject to these 

 criteria. 



The Convention also prescribes a method of 

 determining baseline for the coasts of countries 

 fringed with islands, or deeply idented, called the 

 "straight baseUnes" method. The Convention 

 defines islands, low tide elevations, criteria for 

 determining boundaries from the outermost per- 

 manent harbor works of a coastal country, and 

 provides that the outer limit of the territorial sea is 

 the line every point of which is at a distance from 

 the nearest point of the baseline equal to the 

 breadth of the territorial sea. This is known as the 

 "arcs of circles" method of delimiting the terri- 

 torial sea so that the territorial sea is over all the 

 area within the specified distance of any part of 

 the baseline. 



5. The Second California Case 



The most comprehensive, definitive statement 

 to date of the principles to be followed in applying 

 the Submerged Lands Act was handed down by 

 the Supreme Court in May 1965 in the second 

 California case.'' 



In this case the Supreme Court appUed the 

 principles of the Convention on the Territorial Sea 

 and the Contiguous Zone in construing the Sub- 

 merged Lands Act, rejecting the U.S. contention 

 that the meaning of the Submerged Lands Act was 

 fixed on the date of its enactment. However, the 

 court specifically declared that no future changes 

 in legal principles would affect its meaning. Thus, 

 the court applied the 24-mile closing line rule of 

 the Convention with respect to bays; and defined 

 the "low-water line" as the line of mean lower low 

 water, as modified from time to time by any 

 means, natural or artificial. 



While the United States had feared that a State 

 might extend its seaward boundaries by creation 

 of artificial changes in its coast, the court pointed 

 out that the United States could protect itself 



against such changes by its power to control such 

 activities. 



California had claimed that the "straight base- 

 lines" method should be applied in determining 

 the baseline in inland waters for its offshore 

 islands. However, the court rejected this claim on 

 the ground that straight baselines can be estab- 

 Ushed only by the National Government. The 

 court also followed the Convention in treating the 

 outermost harbor works forming an integral part 

 of the harbor system as part of the coast froin 

 which to measure, and the waters enclosed by 

 them as inland waters. 



Thereafter, in December 1965, the court en- 

 tered a supplemental decree in the Louisiana case 

 which, among other things, ordered an accounting 

 by both the United States and Louisiana of the 

 approximately $218,500,000 that had been 

 impounded under an interim agreement in 1956 

 and derived from areas no longer in dispute. Under 

 the order, about $184,000,000 was released to the 

 United States and about $34,500,000 paid to 

 Louisiana; another $1,100,000,000 has been im- 

 pounded, awaiting final disposition by the U.S. 

 Supreme Court, and the fund continues to grow. 



In February 1967, Texas advertised for mineral 

 leasing certain submerged lands within three lea- 

 gues of the jetties at Galveston and Sabine Pass, 

 but more than three leagues from the natural 

 shoreline. The United States objected and moved 

 the Supreme Court to enjoin Texas from leasing 

 such lands and to define Texas' rights in the case. 



In December 1967, the Court concluded that 

 when the Submerged Lands Act speaks of a 

 boundary "as it existed when the state became a 

 member of the Union" it refers to a completely 

 fixed and immovable line, fixed as of entry of the 

 State into the Union, and excluding consideration 

 of any subsequent changes, either natural or 

 artificial.''* In so deciding, the court stated that in 

 the 1965 California case the court was defining the 

 coastline under the unconditional congressional 

 grant of the three-mile seaward boundary. 



In the Texas case, the court determined the 

 coastline under the conditional congressional grant 

 based historically on the line existing when Texas 

 entered the Union, and it is apparent that the 

 court will not extend the historical claim. 



^United States V. California, 381 U.S. 139 (1965). 



''^United States V.Louisiana, 389 U.S. 155(1967). 



III-119 



