Ohio v. Kentucky

1973-03-05

Headline: Ohio’s late bid to claim the middle of the Ohio River is blocked; Court denies amendment, upholding long-settled 1792 low-water boundary and Kentucky’s longstanding river control.

Holding: The Court denies Ohio’s request to amend its complaint, holding that Ohio is foreclosed from claiming the river’s middle because longstanding court decisions and Ohio’s long acquiescence bar that claim.

Real World Impact:

Prevents Ohio from gaining the river’s middle and riverbed ownership.
Affirms long-settled boundary claims and reduces litigation over river title.
Returns the case to the Special Master for further proceedings.

Topics: state boundaries, river borders, land and water rights, court procedure

Summary

Background

Ohio sued Kentucky to fix the boundary along the Ohio River. Ohio originally asked the Court to declare the boundary at the 1792 northern low-water mark. Ohio said dams built from 1910 to 1929 and replaced and raised since 1955 have permanently raised water levels and obscured the old low-water mark. Kentucky said the boundary follows the present northerly shoreline. In 1971 Ohio sought to amend its complaint to assert alternatively that the boundary is the middle of the river.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed historical decisions, especially Handly’s Lessee (1820), which had treated rivers where one state originally owned the land as leaving the river to that state and placing the boundary at the near bank. The Special Master had found the proposed amendment legally insufficient. The Court agreed that Ohio’s long acquiescence and the line of prior decisions foreclose the new middle-of-the-river claim. The Court therefore denied leave to amend and ultimately adopted the Special Master’s report.

Real world impact

The ruling preserves Kentucky’s longstanding claim to the riverbank and riverbed and prevents Ohio from asserting ownership of the river’s middle at this stage. The decision is procedural: it stops Ohio’s new theory from being added now and sends the case back to the Special Master for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas dissented. He argued the decision was premature, saying Ohio should be allowed to amend so factual and legal issues could be fully tried.