Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUtah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs403 U.S.
9
91 S.Ct. 1775
29 L.Ed.2d 279
State of UTAH, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 31, Orig.
Argued April 26, 1971, on Exceptions to Report of Special Master.
Decided June 7, 1971.
Syllabus
In this suit involving conflicting claims between Utah and the United
States to the shorelands around the Great Salt Lake the Special Master's
report, finding that at the date of Utah's admission to the Union the Lake
was navigable and that the lake bed passed to Utah at that time, is
supported by adequate evidence and is approved by the Court. The parties
are invited to address themselves to the decree submitted with the report
with a view to agreeing, if possible, upon the issues that have now been
settled.
Peter L. Strauss, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
Dallin W. Jensen, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was initiated by Utah to resolve a dispute between it and the United
States as to shorelands around the Great Salt Lake. Utah's claim to the lands is
premised on the navigability of the lake at the date of statehood, viz., January
4, 1896. If indeed the lake were navigable at that time, the claim of Utah would
override any claim of the United States, with the possible exception of a claim
based on the doctrine of reliction, not now before us.
The operation of the 'equal footing' principle has accorded newly admitted State
the same property interests in submerged lands as was enjoyed by the Thirteen
Original States as successors to the British Crown. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3
How. 212, 222 223, 228230, 11 L.Ed. 565. That means that Utah's claim to
the original bed of the Great Salt Lakewhether now submerged or exposed
ultimately rests on whether the lake was navigable (Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet.
367, 410, 416417, 10 L.Ed. 997) at the time of Utah's admission. Shievely v.
Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 2628, 14 S.Ct. 548, 557558, 38 L.Ed. 331. It was to
that issue that we directed the Special Master, Hon. J. Cullen Ganey, to address
himself. See Utah v. United States, 394 U.S. 89, 89 S.Ct. 761, 22 L.Ed.2d 99.
In the present report the Special Master found that at the time in question the
Great Salt Lake was navigable. We approve that finding.
3
The question of navigability is a federal question. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall.
557, 563, 19 L.Ed. 999. Moreover, the fact that the Great Salt Lake is not part
of a navigable interstate or international commercial highway in no way
interferes with the principle of public ownership of its bed. United States v.
Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 75, 51 S.Ct. 438, 440, 75 L.Ed. 844; United States v.
Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 14, 55 S.Ct. 610, 615, 79 L.Ed. 1267. The test of
navigability of waters was stated in The Daniel Ball, supra, at 563:
'Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are
navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are
susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for
commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the
customary modes of trade and travel on water. * * *' While that statement was
addressed to the navigability of 'rivers' it applies to all water courses. United
States v. Oregon, supra, 295 U.S. at 14, 55 S.Ct., at 615.
The United States strongly contests the finding of the Special Master that the
Great Salt Lake was navigable. Although the evidence is not extensive, we
think it is sufficient to sustain the findings. There were, for example, nine boats
used from time to time to haul cattle and sheep from the mainland to one of the
islands or from one of the islands to the mainland. The hauling apparently was
done by the owners of the livestock, not by a carrier for the purpose of making
money. Hence it is suggested that this was not the use of the lake as a navigable
highway in the customary sense of the word. That is to say, the business of the
boats was ranching and not carrying water-borne freight. We think that is an
irrelevant detail. The lake was used as a highway and that is the gist of the
federal test.
It is suggested that the carriage was also limited in the sense of serving only the
few people who performed ranching operations along the shores of the lake.
But that again does not detract from the basic finding that the lake served as a
highway and it is that feature that distinguishes between navigability and nonnavigability.
7
There was, in addition to the boats used by ranchers, one boat used by an
outsider who carried sheep to an island for the owners of the sheep. It is said
that one sheep boat for hire does not make an artery for commerce; but one
sheep boat for hire is in keeping with the theme of actual navigability of the
waters of the lake in earlier years.
There was, in addition, a boat known as the City of Corinne which was
launched in May 1871 for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight; but
its life in that capacity apparently lasted less than a year. In 1872 it was
converted into an excursion boat which apparently plied the waters of the lake
until 1881. There are other boats that hauled sheep to and from an island in the
lake and also hauled ore, and salt, and cedar posts. Still another boat was used
to carry salt from various salt works around the lake to a railroad connection.
The United States says the trade conducted by these various vessels was
sporadic and their careers were short. It is true that most of the traffic which we
have mentioned took place in the 1880's, while Utah became a State in 1896.
Moreover, it is said that the level of the lake had so changed by 1896 that
navigation was not practical. The Master's Report effectively refutes that
contention. It says that on January 4, 1896, the lake was 30.2 feet deep. He
finds that on that date 'the Lake was physically capable of being used in its
ordinary condition as a highway for floating and affording passage to water
craft in the manner over which trade and travel was or might be conducted in
the customary modes of travel on water at that time.' He found that the lake on
January 4, 1896, 'could have floated and afforded passage to large boats, barges
and similar craft currently in general use on inland navigable bodies of water in
the United States.' He found that the areas of the lake that had a depth sufficient
for navigation 'were several miles wide, extending substantially through the
length and width of the Lake.'
10
Most of the history of actual water transportation, to be sure, took place on the
lake in the 1880's, yet the findings of the Master are that the water conditions
which obtained on January 4, 1896, still permitted navigation at that time.
11
In sum, it is clear that Utah is entitled to the decree for which it asks. The
Special Master has submitted with his report a proposed decree which we attach
as an Appendix to this opinion. We invite the parties to address themselves to
that decree with the view of agreeing, if possible, upon the issues which have
now been settled by this litigation.
12
So ordered.
13
Decree for plaintiff.
14
Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this
case.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
15
1. The United States of America, its departments and agencies, are enjoined,
subject to any regulations which the Congress may impose in the interest of
navigation or pollution control, from asserting against the State of Utah any
claim of right, title and interest:
16
(a) to the bed of the Great Salt Lake lying below the meander line of Great Salt
Lake as duly surveyed heretofore or in accordance with Section 1 of the Act of
June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192, with the exception of any lands within the Bear
River Migratory Bird Refuge and the Weber Basin federal reclamation project,
17
(b) to the natural resources and living organisms in or beneath the bed of the
Great Salt Lake as delineated in (a) above, and
18
(c) to the natural resources and living organisms either within the waters of the
Great Salt Lake, or extracted therefrom, lying below the meander line of the
Great Salt Lake, as delineated in (a) above, except brine and minerals in
solution in the brine or precipitated or extracted therefrom in whatever federal
lands there may be below said meander line, together with the right to prospect
for, mine, and remove the same, as set forth in Section 3 of the Act of June 3,
1966, 80 Stat. 192.
19
2. The State of Utah is not required to pay the United States, through the
Secretary of the Interior, for the lands, including any minerals, lying below the
meander line of the Great Salt Lake, as delineated in 1(a), above, of this decree.
20
3. The prayer of the United States of America in its Answer to the State of
Utah's Complaint that this Court 'confirm, declare and establish that the United
States is the owner of all right, title and interest in all the lands described in
Section 2 of the Act of June 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 192, as amended by the Act of
August 23, 1966, 80 Stat. 349, and that the State of Utah is without any right,
title or interest in such lands, save for the right to have these lands conveyed to
it by the United States, and to pay for them, in accordance with the provisions
of the Act of June 3, 1966, as amended,' is denied.
21
Respectfully submitted,
22
J. CULLEN GANEY,
23
Senior Circuit Judge,
24
Special Master.
