Arkansas v. Tennessee
Headline: Court affirms that a 5,000‑acre Mississippi River bend is part of Tennessee, fixes the Arkansas–Tennessee boundary at the old channel, and orders a survey to mark the line.
Holding: The Court affirmed the Special Master’s report, declaring the disputed five‑thousand‑acre bend part of Tennessee because an avulsion fixed the state line in the abandoned old channel rather than following the new river course.
- Declares the disputed 5,000‑acre bend part of Tennessee, changing land ownership.
- Orders a formal boundary survey to mark the official state line.
- Requires Arkansas and Tennessee to split the costs of the proceeding equally.
Summary
Background
A boundary dispute arose between the State of Arkansas and the State of Tennessee over Cow Island Bend on the Mississippi River. The contested area runs about six miles along Arkansas’s west bank and covers roughly five thousand acres. Arkansas began the original action on October 13, 1967, and the Court appointed Judge Gunnar H. Nordbye as Special Master on January 15, 1968, to hold hearings, view the land, and recommend where the state line should be. The Special Master recommended that the entire disputed area be declared part of Tennessee.
Reasoning
The core question was which State owns the land where the river changed course. The parties agreed the boundary rule is the thalweg, meaning the river’s main navigable channel. The evidence showed the Mississippi migrated until about 1912, when an avulsion — a sudden change in the river’s course — left an old channel on the Arkansas side and made the thalweg stagnant. The Master found that once the old channel became stagnant, erosion and accretion stopped and the boundary became fixed in the middle of that abandoned channel. The Court adopted the Master’s findings, overruled Arkansas’s exceptions, and affirmed the Report based on those factual findings and established law about avulsion.
Real world impact
The ruling declares the disputed land part of Tennessee and directs the Special Master, now appointed Commissioner, to supervise a formal survey to mark the boundary. If the Court approves that survey, the surveyed line will be the official state boundary. The decision affects property titles, local administration in Crittenden and Shelby Counties, and requires the parties to share the costs of the proceeding equally.
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?