Utah v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 31,31 |
| Parties | State of UTAH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES. rig |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In this suit involving conflicting claims between Utah and the United States to the shorelands around the Great Salt Lake the Special Master's report, finding that at the date of Utah's admission to the Union the Lake was navigable and that the lake bed passed to Utah at that time, is supported by adequate evidence and is approved by the Court. The parties are invited to address themselves to the decree submitted with the report with a view to agreeing, if possible, upon the issues that have now been settled.
Peter L. Strauss, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
Dallin W. Jensen, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff.
This suit was initiated by Utah to resolve a dispute between it and the United States as to shorelands around the Great Salt Lake. Utah's claim to the lands is premised on the navigability of the lake at the date of statehood, viz., January 4, 1896. If indeed the lake were navigable at that time, the claim of Utah would override any claim of the United States, with the possible exception of a claim based on the doctrine of reliction, not now before us.
The operation of the 'equal footing' principle has accorded newly admitted State the same property interests in submerged lands as was enjoyed by the Thirteen Original States as successors to the British Crown. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 222 223, 228—230, 11 L.Ed. 565. That means that Utah's claim to the original bed of the Great Salt Lake—whether now submerged or exposed—ultimately rests on whether the lake was navigable (Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410, 416—417, 10 L.Ed. 997) at the time of Utah's admission. Shievely v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 26—28, 14 S.Ct. 548, 557—558, 38 L.Ed. 331. It was to that issue that we directed the Special Master, Hon. J. Cullen Ganey, to address himself. See Utah v. United States, 394 U.S. 89, 89 S.Ct. 761, 22 L.Ed.2d 99. In the present report the Special Master found that at the time in question the Great Salt Lake was navigable. We approve that finding.
The question of navigability is a federal question. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563, 19 L.Ed. 999. Moreover, the fact that the Great Salt Lake is not part of a navigable interstate or international commercial highway in no way interferes with the principle of public ownership of its bed. United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 75, 51 S.Ct. 438, 440, 75 L.Ed. 844; United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 14, 55 S.Ct. 610, 615, 79 L.Ed. 1267. The test of navigability of waters was stated in The Daniel Ball, supra, at 563:
* * *' While that statement was addressed to the navigability of 'rivers' it applies to all water courses. United States v. Oregon, supra, 295 U.S. at 14, 55 S.Ct., at 615.
The United States strongly contests the finding of the Special Master that the Great Salt Lake was navigable. Although the evidence is not extensive, we think it is sufficient to sustain the findings. There were, for example, nine boats used from time to time to haul cattle and sheep from the mainland to one of the islands or from one of the islands to the mainland. The hauling apparently was done by the owners of the livestock, not by a carrier for the purpose of making money. Hence it is suggested that this was not the use of the lake as a navigable highway in the customary sense of the word. That is to say, the business of the boats was ranching and not carrying water-borne freight. We think that is an irrelevant detail. The lake was used as a highway and that is the gist of the federal test.
It is suggested that the carriage was also limited in the sense of serving only the few people who performed ranching operations along the shores of the lake. But that again does not detract from the basic finding that the lake served as a highway and it is that feature that distinguishes between navigability and non-navigability.
There was, in addition to the boats used by ranchers, one boat used by an outsider who carried sheep to an island for the owners of the sheep. It is said that one sheep boat for hire does not make an artery for commerce; but one sheep boat for hire is in keeping with the theme of actual navigability of the waters of the lake in earlier years.
There was, in addition, a boat known as the City of Corinne which was launched in May 1871 for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight; but its life in that capacity apparently lasted less than a year. In 1872 it was converted into an excursion boat which apparently plied the waters of the lake until 1881. There are other boats that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. v. Hoffman
...Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 404-410, 61 S.Ct. 291, 85 L.Ed. 243 (1940).7 See note 6, Supra.8 Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971), cited by the Corps, is not to the contrary. The sole issue in that case was whether the United States, or the State of ......
-
State of Alaska v. US
...inland waterbodies passes from the United States to the state when the state enters the Union. Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 10, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 1776, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971); Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 313, 324 n. 19, 94 S.Ct. 517, 525 n. 19, 38 L.Ed.2d 526 (1973), overruled......
-
Arizona Center For Law In Public Interest v. Hassell
...claims. The standard of navigability for equal footing claims is established by federal law. Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 10, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 1776, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971). Navigability is determined by reference to the ordinary and natural condition of the watercourse at the time of the......
-
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull
...equal footing claims is established by federal law." Hassell, 172 Ariz. at 362, 837 P.2d at 164 (citing Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 10, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971)). Indeed, the assessment of navigability for the purpose of determining title to land under watercourses at the......
-
CHAPTER 3 Waters of the United States (How Many Drops Does It Take)
...843 (D. Md. 2001). [149] 152 F.Supp.2d 983 (N.D. III. 2001). [150] SWANCC Guidance, supra, n. 20. [151] Id. (citing United States v. Utah, 403 U.S. 9 (1971)) (finding the Lake to be navigable-in-fact); Hardy Salt Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 501 F. 2d 1156 (10th Cir. 1974)) (......
-
Navigable Waters
...see Jon Devine et al., he Intended Scope of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction , 41 ELR 11118, 11124 (Dec. 2011). 295. Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 1 ELR 20250 (1971). 296. 609 F.2d 1204, 9 ELR 20757 (7th Cir. 1979). 297. Query: How compelling a distinction is this, when recreational boatin......
-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Proposed Rulemaking: Definition of 'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act (Introduction and Legal Analysis), 79 Fed. Reg. 22188 (Apr. 21, 2014)
...is not navigable and never has been but may become so by reasonable improvements. 311 U.S. at 407– 08. In 1971, in Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971), the Supreme Court held that the Great Salt Lake, an intrastate water body, was navigable under Federal law even though it ‘‘is not par......
-
Divvying Atlantis: who owns the land beneath navigable manmade reservoirs?
...Co., 350 U.S. 308 (1956). (35.) Whether a body of water is navigable is initially a question of federal law. See Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971); Alaska v. United States, 754 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. (36.) Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U.S. 193 (1987); Oregon ex rel. Sta......