United States v. California, 5
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BURGER |
| Citation | 447 U.S. 1,100 S.Ct. 1994,64 L.Ed.2d 681 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. State of CALIFORNIA. rig |
| Docket Number | No. 5,O,5 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 1980 |
v.
State of CALIFORNIA.
See 449 U.S. 1028, 101 S.Ct. 600.
The issue presented at this stage of this original action is whether—for purposes of determining California's ownership under the Submerged Lands Act of submerged lands and natural resources lying within three geographical miles seaward of the California coastline—the coastline follows the mean lower low-water line along the natural shore, or whether it follows the seaward edge of 15 piers and the Rincon Island complex projecting into the sea from the shore. Rincon Island, a privately owned artificial "island" used to service offshore oil facilities, is erected upon foundations resting on the ocean floor, has a dock on the seaward side, and is connected to the mainland by a causeway structure under which water flows freely. Neither the causeway nor the island have had any noticeable effect on the shoreline, and the complex is not a coast protective work. The piers in question, some of which are privately owned and some of which are operated by the State as docking facilities or for recreational purposes, are all attached to the mainland; water flows freely underneath each; they have no effect on the shoreline and are not coast protective works. The Special Master concluded that the piers and the Rincon Island complex do not constitute extensions of the coast and that the coastline follows the natural coast in the vicinity of these structures. California filed an exception to the Master's report.
Held: The Special Master's conclusion is proper. Under the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which is used for guidance
Page 2
in defining "coastline" for purposes of the Submerged Lands Act, the general rule expressed in Art. 3 therein is that the "normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." Although the type of construction of the open piers involved here, being elevated above the ocean's surface on pilings, does not, without more, require a determination adverse to California, the absence of a "lower low-water line" deprives them of a "normal baseline," and precludes them from falling within the ambit of Art. 3. Moreover, Art. 8 of the Convention, whereby "the outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour system shall be regarded as forming part of the coast," does not encompass all structures erected on the shore. The structures in this case are not harbors and are not a part of outermost "harbour works," since they neither "protect," "enclose," nor "shelter," Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U.S. 11, 37, n. 42, 89 S.Ct. 773, 788, 22 L.Ed.2d 44 and thus they cannot constitute an integral part of a harbor system. Nor does the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and decisions thereunder indicate that Congress has withdrawn from the courts the authority to define "coastline" for purposes of the Submerged Lands Act. Pp. 5-9.
Exception to Special Master's report overruled.
John F. Briscoe, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
Stephen M. Shapiro, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Page 3
Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States began this original action against the State of California under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution in 1945 to determine whether the right to exploit natural resources under the submerged lands off the California coast belongs to the United States or to California.
In 1947, this Court decreed that the United States owned all submerged lands extending seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the California coast. United States v. California, 332 U.S. 804, 805, 68 S.Ct. 20, 21, 92 L.Ed. 382. See also United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947). When Congress enacted the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., the United States, in effect, quitclaimed to California whatever interest the Federal Government may have had in, and to, all lands and natural resources lying within three geographical miles seaward of the California coastline. § 3(b)(1), 43 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1). Congress subsequently enacted the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq., which declared that the United States owned all submerged lands seaward of those granted to California by the Submerged Lands Act. §§ 1332, 1333.
In 1978, the parties filed cross-motions for entry of a supplemental decree. Although those motions proposed three issues for resolution, only one is presently before the Court.1 That issue is whether the coastline follows the mean lower low-water line along the natural shore, or whether it follows the seaward edge of 15 piers and the Rincon Island complex projecting into the sea from the shore.
Page 4
This Court appointed a Special Master who received evidence and submitted recommendations. The Master made the following findings of fact:
Rincon Island is a privately owned artificial "island" off the shore near Punta Gorda, Ventura County, which is used to service offshore oil facilities. It is built upon large concrete tetrapods 2 which rest on the ocean floor, and it has a surface consisting of rock and dirt fill. There are buildings and other structures on the island, all of which are related to an active oil well. On the seaward side of the island is a large dock equipped with hardware for the berthing of vessels.
The island is connected to the mainland by a structure commonly known and identified on maps as the Punta Gorda Causeway. Oil is pumped to shore by a pipeline running beneath and alongside the causeway structure. The wooden causeway deck surface rests on a steel frame supported by pilings filled with gravel and capped with concrete. Water flows freely underneath. Neither the structure nor the island has had any noticeable effect on the shoreline, and the complex is not a coast protective work.3
The 15 piers have asphalt, wood, or concrete deck surfaces mounted on precast concrete, steel, or wood pilings. They vary in length from 500 feet (at the Santa Barbara Biltmore Hotel) to 3,500 feet (at Ocean Beach). All are attached to the mainland, and water flows freely underneath each. The piers have no effect on the shoreline; they are not coast protective works. One pier is privately owned by a hotel; 3 others are privately owned and used to supply offshore oil rigs; the remaining 11 are operated by the California State
Page 5
Department of Parks and Recreation as docking facilities or for recreational purposes.4
The Special Master concluded that neither...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. State, No. 55137
...Statutes (1977). In rejecting these the sentencing judge here, just as in Mines v. State, 390 So.2d 332, 337 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1994, 64 L.Ed.2d 681 (1981), misconceived the standard to be applied in assessing the existence of these mitigating factors. Apparentl......
-
Ferguson v. State, No. 55498
...but to return this case to the trial judge for resentencing. As we stated in Mines v. State, 390 So.2d 332, 337 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1994, 64 L.Ed.2d 681 Under the provisions of section 921.141(6), Florida Statutes (1975), there are two mitigating circumstances re......
-
City of Houston v. Hotels.com, L.P., No. 14–10–00349–CV.
...is used by courts, legislatures, the general public, and even the City and the Sports Authority. See, e.g., United States v. California, 447 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S.Ct. 1994, 1997, 64 L.Ed.2d 681 (1980) (“One pier is privately owned by a hotel....”); W. Union Tel. Co. v. Shaw, 142 Tex. 243, 245, 1......
-
U.S. v. Skurdal, No. 91-30441
...1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (text of titles not enacted into positive law is prima facie evidence of the law itself); cf. Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 1, 20 (1980) ("With the enactment of [18 U.S.C. § 2], all participants in conduct violating a federal criminal statute are ... punishable......
-
Ferguson v. State, No. 55137
...Statutes (1977). In rejecting these the sentencing judge here, just as in Mines v. State, 390 So.2d 332, 337 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1994, 64 L.Ed.2d 681 (1981), misconceived the standard to be applied in assessing the existence of these mitigating factors. Apparentl......
-
Ferguson v. State, No. 55498
...but to return this case to the trial judge for resentencing. As we stated in Mines v. State, 390 So.2d 332, 337 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1994, 64 L.Ed.2d 681 Under the provisions of section 921.141(6), Florida Statutes (1975), there are two mitigating circumstances re......
-
City of Houston v. Hotels.com, L.P., No. 14–10–00349–CV.
...is used by courts, legislatures, the general public, and even the City and the Sports Authority. See, e.g., United States v. California, 447 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S.Ct. 1994, 1997, 64 L.Ed.2d 681 (1980) (“One pier is privately owned by a hotel....”); W. Union Tel. Co. v. Shaw, 142 Tex. 243, 245, 1......
-
U.S. v. Skurdal, No. 91-30441
...1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (text of titles not enacted into positive law is prima facie evidence of the law itself); cf. Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 1, 20 (1980) ("With the enactment of [18 U.S.C. § 2], all participants in conduct violating a federal criminal statute are ... punishable for ......