G. Pending and Prospective Problems 



A partial list of pending and prospective prob- 

 lems contained in "Offshore Submerged Lands"' ' 

 is indicative of the activity and economic stake 

 that the United States has in its submerged lands 

 and on the outer Continental Shelf: 



—Location of the offshore boundary between 

 Texas and Louisiana— important to the United 

 States because of its effect on the boundary 

 between Texas' three league marginal belt and the 

 Federal submerged lands opposite Louisiana's 

 three-mile marginal belt. United States v. 

 Louisiana.''^ 



—Determination of how the rights and duties of 

 lessees are affected where leases are split by the 

 Une finally drawn between Louisiana's submerged 

 lands and those of the United States. United States 

 V. Louisiana. 



-Determination of lands withheld from the States 

 by section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act. United 

 States V. Louisiana. 



—Determination of which of a variety of coastal 

 structures are such "permanent harbor works" as 

 to affect the baseline of California's marginal belt. 

 United States v. California; United States v. 

 Louisiana. 



—Specific identification of the entire coast line.' 

 United States v. Louisiana; United States v. 

 California. 



-Determination whether the Convention on the 

 Continental Shelf has diminished the rights as- 

 serted by the United States under the Outer 

 Continental Shelf Lands Act to enjoin a private 

 project to create artificial islands and an inde- 

 pendent country on Triumph and Long Reefs, 

 about four miles east of Biscayne Bay, Florida. 



Op. cit. supra note 60. 



'*One commentator reports that of the 18 lateral 

 boundaries between the States, only the line between 

 Florida and Alabama is completely and unambiguously 

 deUmited, and the lines of New Hampshire-Massachusetts, 

 California-Oregon, and Oregon-Washington are substan- 

 tially delimited. In other cases delimiting language is 

 almost completely lacking. See Griffin, "Delimitation of 

 Ocean Space Boundaries Between Adjacent Coastal States 

 of the United States," Third Annual Law of the Sea 

 Institute, June 1968. 



United States v. Ray, (Civ. No. 65-271, S.D. Fla.). 

 A second party has intervened in that suit, 

 claiming rights adverse both to Ray and to the 

 United States. Atlantis Development Corp. v. 

 United States, 379 F. 2d 818 (C.A. 5, 1967). 



Off California's southern coast a similar project 

 has been attempted on the Cortes Bank, and may 

 be complicated legally because the Continental 

 Shelf between the Cortes Bank and the mainland is 

 broken by depths greater than 200 meters. 



—Sunken treasure, archaeological artifacts, and 

 other wrecked and abandoned property on the 

 Outer Continental Shelf and use of the shelf for 

 purposes other than exploitation of natural re- 

 sources, raise problems with respect to the author- 

 ity of the Secretary of the Army to issue permits, 

 and may require legislation or international resolu- 

 tion. 



To the list of pending and prospective problems 

 must be added the need for greater boundary 

 stability and new procedures for making binding 

 base line determinations. 



At present there are no general procedures by 

 which the Federal Government can enter into 

 agreements with the States on the location of 

 offshore boundaries, except by concurrent legisla- 

 tion or consent decree. 



The United States cannot properly initiate a 

 suit unless there is a real controversy, nor should 

 the Supreme Court be asked or expected to 

 exercise its original jurisdiction unless the contro- 

 versy is of broad general importance. Congress has 

 never consented to being sued by the States in 

 offshore boundary cases, and all such cases must 

 now be initiated by the Federal Government. 

 When the parties agree on a boundary at the 

 outset, neither can properly use court proceedings 

 because there is no true controversy. 



As noted earlier, at common law waterline 

 boundaries are ambulatory-as the waterline moves 

 by gradual, natural processes, the boundary moves. 

 Under present principles, when a judgment de- 

 scribes an offshore boundary by metes and 

 bounds, the boundary is stable as long as the 

 coastline remains stable. If erosion moves the line 

 inward, an oil well at the outer edge of a State 

 lease may pass into Federal ownership, extinguish- 

 ing the rights of the State and its lessee. In the 

 converse situation, the law of the particular State 

 will control ownership of the well. 



III-120 



