United States v. California
Headline: Ruling gives the federal government exclusive control of the seabed beyond three geographical miles while confirming California’s ownership of tidelands and submerged lands within three miles, subject to federal exceptions.
Holding: The Court modified its prior decree to declare the United States owns and controls the subsoil and seabed beyond three geographical miles, and California owns tidelands and submerged lands within three miles subject to the Submerged Lands Act.
- Gives the federal government control of seabed beyond three geographical miles.
- Confirms California’s ownership and management of tidelands and submerged lands within three miles.
- Clarifies coastal boundary lines for resource management and port administration.
Summary
Background
The federal government and the state of California asked the Court to update a prior decree about who owns coastal and offshore lands. The United States moved for a supplemental decree after a Special Master held hearings and filed a report. The Court approved that report with modifications and issued a decree that changes the earlier 1947 order and defines coastal lines and terms used to measure boundaries.
Reasoning
The core question was where the line falls between federal and state ownership of the seabed, subsoil, and inland waters. The Court decided that the United States owns and has exclusive control over the subsoil and seabed more than three geographical miles from the coast line. The Court also held that California owns the tidelands and submerged lands, minerals, and other natural resources within three geographical miles of the coast line, except where federal law (the Submerged Lands Act) reserves rights to the United States. To make these holdings workable, the decree defines key terms—coast line, island, low-tide elevation, mean lower low water, geographical mile—and sets rules and specific lines for certain ports and bays.
Real world impact
The decree clarifies who can manage, lease, develop, and use offshore lands and resources within and beyond three geographical miles off California’s coast. It identifies particular harbors and bays and lists waters that are not considered historic inland waters. The Court kept power to approve detailed boundary stipulations and to issue further orders, so parties can seek more precise lines or additional relief from the Court.
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?