United States v. State of Utah

• Decision Date: 13 April 1931
• Docket Number: No. 14,14
• Citation: 283 U.S. 64,75 L.Ed. 844,51 S.Ct. 438
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. STATE OF UTAH. * original
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

283 U.S. 64

51 S.Ct. 438

75 L.Ed. 844

UNITED STATES

v STATE OF UTAH.^*

No. 14 original.

Argued Feb. 25, 26, 1931.

Decided April 13, 1931.

[Syllabus from pages 64-66 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. Charles M. Blackmar, of Kansas City, Mo., for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 66-69 intentionally omitted] Messrs. P. T. Farnsworth, Jr., and Waldemar Van Cott, both of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the State of Utah.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 69-71 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States brought this suit to quiet its title to certain portions of the beds of the Green, Colorado, and San Juan rivers within the state of Utah, as follows:

The Green river, from a point where the river crosses the line between townships 23 and 24 south, range 17 east, Salt Lake base and meridian (approximately he mouth of the San Rafael river) down to the confluence of the Green river with the Colorado river, 95 miles.

The Colorado river from the mouth of Castle creek (about 14 miles above the town of Moab) to the boundary line between Utah and Arizona, 296 miles (including the portion of the Colorado river above the mouth of the Green river which had formerly been known as the Grand river).

The San Juan river from the mouth of Chinle creek (5 miles below the town of Bluff) to its confluence with the Colorado river, 133 miles.

The complaint alleges that by the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty of February 2, 1848,¹ the United States acquired from the Republic of Mexico the title to all the lands riparian to these rivers, together with the river beds, within the state of Utah, and that the United States remains the owner of these lands, with certain stated exceptions of lands granted by it; that the Green, Colorado, and San Juan rivers throughout their entire length within the state of Utah are not, and never have been, navigable, and that they have not been used, nor are they susceptible of being used, in their natural and ordinary condition as permanent highways or channels for useful commerce within the state of Utah or between states or with any foreign nation; that the United States, as proprietor, has executed and delivered numerous prospecting permits covering portions of the river beds in question, giving to the permittees the exclusive right of prospecting for petroleum, oil, and gas minerals, and that the permittees have entered upon development work; that the state of Utah claims title adverse to the United States in these river beds, asserting that the rivers always have been and are navigable, and that title to the river beds vested in the state when it was admitted to the Union; and that Utah, without the consent or authority of the United States, has executed and delivered numerous oil and gas leases covering portions of these river beds and purporting to give exclusive rights and privileges. The United States asks that the claim of Utah to any right, title, or interest in the river beds in question be adjudged to be null and void, that it be determined that the United States has full and exclusive title thereto, and that injunction issue accordingly.

By its answer, Utah denies ownership by the United States of the river beds described in the complaint and sets up title in the state, alleging the navigability of the rivers.

The Court referred he c ase to Charles Warren as special master to take the evidence and to report it with his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for decree. Hearings have been had before the master, voluminous evidence has been received, and the master has filed his report. The report gives a comprehensive statement of the facts adduced with respect to the topography of the rivers, their history, impediments to navigation, and the use, and susceptibility to use, of the rivers as highways of commerce.

A distinction in descriptive terms should be noted. When Utah became a state, the Grand river, rising in Colorado and flowing through that state and within Utah to the junction with the Green river, was designated on all government maps and reports as separate from the Colorado river, and the name Colorado river was applied only to the river formed by the confluence of the Green river and the Grand river. The Congress, by the Act of July 25, 1921,² provided that the river theretofore known as the Grand river, from its source in Colorado to the point where it joined the Green river in Utah and formed the Colorado river, should thereafter be designated as the Colorado river. Considering that this act had no retroactive effect, and as it expressly provided that the change in name should not affect the rights of Colorado and Utah, the master has followed in his report the earlier designations and thus has dealt with four rivers, the beds of which are in question, instead of three; that is, the Green river, the Grand river, the Colorado river (below the junction of the Green and Grand) and the San Juan river.

The master has made his findings as to navigability as of January 4, 1896, the date of the admission of Utah to the Union.³ The master finds that at that time the following streams in question were navigable waters of Utah: The Green river, from a point where the river crossed the township line between townships 23 and 24 south, range 17 east, Salt Lake base and meridian down to its confluence with the Grand river (about 95 miles); the Grand river, from the mouth of Castle creek down to the confluence of the Grand river with the Green river (about 79 miles); and the Colorado river, from Mile 176 above Lees Ferry south to the Utah-Arizona boundary (about 150 miles); and that the following streams were nonnavigable waters of Utah: The Colorado river, south from the confluence of the Green and the Grand rivers down to the end of Cataract Canyon at Mile 176 above Lees Ferry (about 40 miles); and the San Juan river from the mouth of Chinle creek at Mile 133 above the confluence of the San Juan river and the Colorado river down to the mouth of San Juan river.

On these findings, the master has concluded that the title to the beds of the rivers, where the rivers were found to be navigable as above stated, was in the state of Utah, and, where the rivers were found to be nonnavigable, was in the United States. Accordingly, the master has recommended that the Court enter a decree dismissing the complaint so far as it relates to the bed of the Green river to that portion of the bed of the Colorado river which in 1896 constituted the Grand river, and to that portion of the bed of the Colorado river from Mile 176 above Lees Ferry south to the Utah-Arizona boundary; and that the Court decree that the title to the bed of the Colorado river, from the confluence of the Green river with the Grand river down to the end of Cataract Canyon at Mile 176 above Lees Ferry, and to the bed of the San Juan river, was vested in the United States on January 4, 1896 (except so far as theretofore granted by the United States), and that Utah be enjoined from asserting title or interest therein.

Both parties have filed exceptions to the master's report.

Neither party excepts to the finding and conclusion with respect to the nonnavigability of the San Juan river, or of the Colorado river from the first rapid or cataract at Mile 212.15 above Lees Ferry down to he e nd of Cataract Canyon at Mile 176 above Lees Ferry.

The United States has a large number of exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the master as to the navi- gability of the Green river, and of the Grand river down to its junction with the Green river, and of the Colorado river from Mile 176 above Lees Ferry to the Utah-Arizona boundary.

Utah excepts to the findings and conclusion of the master as to the nonnavigability of the Colorado river from the confluence of the Green river and the Grand river at Mile 216.5 above Lees Ferry down to the first rapid or cataract at Mile 212.15 above Lees Ferry.

The controversy is with respect to certain facts, and the sufficiency of the basis of fact for a finding of navigability, rather than in relation to the general principles of law that are applicable. In accordance with the constitutional principle of the equality of states, the title to the beds of rivers within Utah passed to that state when it was admitted to the Union, if the rivers were then navigable; and, if they were not then navigable, the title to the river beds remained in the United States.⁴ The question of navigability is thus determinative of the controversy, and that is a federal question. This is so, although it is undisputed that none of the portions of the rivers under consideration constitute navigable waters of the United States, that is, they are not navigable in interstate or foreign commerce, and the question is whether they are navigable waters of the State of Utah.⁵ State laws⁶ cannot affect titles vested in the United States.⁷

The test of navigability has frequently been stated by this Court. In The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563, 19 L. Ed. 999, the Court said: 'Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.' In The Montello, 20 Wall. 430, 441, 442, 22 L. Ed. 391, it was pointed out that 'the true test of the navigability of a stream does not depend on the mode by which commerce is, or may be, conducted, nor the difficulties attending navigation,' and that 'it would be a narrow rule to hold that in this country, unless a river was capable of being navigated by steam or sail vessels, it could not be treated as a public highway.' The principles thus laid down have recently been restated in United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U....