Vermont v. New Hampshire
Headline: Boundary dispute over the Connecticut River is settled: the Court fixes Vermont’s eastern line at the river’s low-water mark, limiting New Hampshire’s claim to land up to the top of the river bank.
Holding: The Court holds that the boundary between Vermont and New Hampshire runs along the western side of the Connecticut River at the low-water mark, not at the top or vegetation line of the river bank.
- Fixes state boundary at low-water mark, clarifying riverbank control.
- Affects taxation and jurisdiction of bridges, dams, and riverside structures.
- Resolves title disputes for riverside property owners along the boundary.
Summary
Background
The State of Vermont sued to settle its eastern boundary with the State of New Hampshire along the Connecticut River. Vermont originally claimed the boundary ran at the river’s central channel or, alternatively, to the west bank at an average water level. New Hampshire argued the border was higher on the riverbank — at the top of the bank or where vegetation ends — which would give it a narrow strip of land that is sometimes submerged. A Special Master reviewed colonial grants, an 1764 royal order, later Congressional resolutions, and long practice by both states, and found Vermont’s boundary was at the low-water mark on the west side of the river.
Reasoning
The key question was whether the 1764 Order-in-Council and later negotiations meant the boundary was on the river itself or at a higher point on the bank. The Court examined the history of colonial grants, the Order-in-Council, Vermont’s acceptance of Congress’s conditions for statehood in 1781–1782, and practical signs like an 1897 monument placed at the low-water line and long acquiescence by New Hampshire. The Court agreed with the Special Master that the historical documents and the states’ conduct showed the boundary was intended to be on the river and to reach the normal low-water mark. The Court adopted the Special Master’s unchallenged definition of low-water mark.
Real world impact
The ruling fixes which state controls the river and the narrow strip of riverside land, affecting taxation, ownership, and regulation of bridges, dams, and other riverside structures. The Court ordered costs divided and invited the parties to submit a decree to carry the decision into effect.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?