Page images
PDF
EPUB

Texas and Louisiana decisions completely stopped all development of the oil and gas deposits off those coasts at a time when the oil was badly needed for domestic and defense purposes.

The S2d Congress saw a flood of tidelands legislation-some for Federal ownership, some for State ownership, and some to allow interim oil and gas development pending final settlement of ownership.

The House of Representatives, in July 1951, passed by 265 to 109 the Walter bill, H. R. 4484, to confirm and establish State titles to submerged lands within the States' original boundaries and confirm Federal ownership of the Continental Shelf beyond with Federal leasing of its oil deposits..

Senator Joseph O'Mahoney, chairman of the Senate Interior Committee, kept within his committee all bills favorable to State ownership. Finally, in the second session in 1951, his fellow committee members agreed to report out an interim Federal leasing bill, Senate Joint Resolution 20, on the condition that it should be open for amendment on the floor of the Senate. On the floor it was amended to make it identical with the House bill except for the provisions regarding the Continental Shelf, and passed with a much smaller majority than the House bill. The House accepted the amended Senate Joint Resolution 20, but again President Truman vetoed it and the Senate could not muster enough votes to pass it over the President's veto.

The "tidelands" were an issue in the 1952 elections. The Republican platform contained a plank favoring State ownership and the Democratic one favored Federal ownership. The issue was prominent in the campaigns in California, Texas, and Louisiana.

In his last days in office, President Truman tried to forestall action on the "tidelands" in the 83d Congress by issuing an Executive order declaring them a naval oil reserve. The present Attorney General subsequently has said that that Executive order "did not intend to, nor did it in fact or in law, create a naval petroleum reserve within the meaning of the statute."

The doctrine of Federal "paramount rights" and "dominion," enunciated in the Supreme Court's California tidelands decision, has implications far beyond control of the submerged lands and the valuable oil deposits under them.

The American Bar Association, after careful investigation and consideration, concluded:

"The new concept that the Federal Government has the 'paramount right' to take property without compensation because it may need that property in discharging its duty to defend the country and conduct its foreign relations can have no logical end except that the Federal Government may take over all property, public and private, and under this theory the Federal Government could nationalize all of the natural resources of the country without paying the owners therefor, wholly in disregard of the fifth amendment."

The National Association of Attorneys General, representing the chief legal officers of the States, sounded this warning:

"The principles of the 'tidelands' decisions, if not erased from the law of the land by act of Congress, could lead to nationalization of private lands as well as State lands without compensation."

Federal officials and congressional proponents of Federal ownership of the "tidelands" have asserted that this is not so. Yet the Justice Department in 1951 used these very same words-"paramount rights"-in the celebrated "Fallbrook case." This was a gigantic lawsuit aimed at every water rights owner in the entire basin of the Santa Margarita River in southern California, a total of approximately 14,000 prospective defendants of which more than 3,000 were actually served with complaints. An additional water supply was needed for the Marine Camp Joseph C. Pendelton. The Navy had purchased the largest water rights on the river and was negotiating for others when the United States Attorney General stepped in with the Fallbrook suit, using the claim of "paramount rights" in an effort to take the water without recompense.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States put the "tidelands" issue to the vote of its members in 1946 in a referendum. By an overwhelming vote, the membership adopted a policy declaration, reiterated twice since, favoring State ownership. This policy declaration states:

"The Congress should give statutory reaffirmation to State ownership of all lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of each of the respective States, established by their several enabling acts, including lands beneath tidal waters, those extending for 3 nautical miles (or to other established State boundaries) seaward beyond ordinary low water mark of coastlines and those beneath bays, inlets, lakes, and rivers."

Mr. FOLEY. The next one is a resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco of January 12, 1953, urging Congress to enact legislation to reaffirm California's unquestioned title to its submerged lands.

Mr. GRAHAM. It is admitted without objection. (The document is as follows:)

RESOLUTION No. 12948-URGING CONGRESS TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO REAFFIRM CALIFORNIA'S UNQUESTIONED TITLE TO ITS TIDE AND SUBMERGED LANDS

(Series of 1939)

Whereas the city and county of San Francisco has heretofore recognized the urgent necessity for enactment of Federal legislation which will have the effect of removing the cloud cast upon the title of the State of California and all of its subdivisions or persons acting pursuant to its permission, to the tide and submerged lands off the coast of the State of California extending seaward 3 miles, which cloud was created by a decision of the United States Supreme Court; and

Whereas the State of California, its subdivisions and persons acting pursuant to its permission have spent enormous sums of money improving and developing the tide and submerged lands along the coast of California, which improvements and developments are in jeopardy unless the Congress enacts legislation to remove the cloud on the title to said lands created by the Supreme Court decision; and

Whereas the cloud created by the decision of the Supreme Court not only affects the investment, development and improvement already made on and to the tide and submerged lands off the coast of California, but it will prevent further investments in and development to and improvements of these tide and submerged lands off the coast of California, to the detriment of the people of the State of California and of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco does hereby respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to enact legislation to reaffirm California's unquestioned title to its tide and submerged lands; and, be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to Senators Knowland and Kuchel, Congressman Shelley, Congressman Mailliard, to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and to the President-elect of the United States; and, be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the secretary of the Senate of the State of California; and, be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the mayor for transmittal to our Washington legislative representative with directions that the latter use all his resources to effectuate the intent of his resolution.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco at its meeting of January 12, 1953.

Approved, January 14, 1953.

January 19-1t

JOHN R. MCGRATH, Clerk.

ELMER E. ROBINSON, Mayor.

Mr. FOLEY. The next one is a letter and resolution from the American Municipal Association; the letter is dated February 19, 1953, and addressed to Mr. Reed, as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. GRAHAM. Without objection it will be admitted in the record. (The document is as follows:)

Hon. CHAUNCEY W. REED,

AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., February 19, 1953.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN REED: I am enclosing a policy statement and resolution expressing the opinion of the American Municipal Association on the tidelands

question. This association, through its direct membership and State leagues of municipalities, represents 12,000 cities in 42 States. The position explained in the accompanying statement has been reiterated several times and reflects our considered stand on this matter for many year.

The American Municipal Association urges the passage of legislation which would vest title to the marginal seas, commonly called tidelands, in the several States of our Union.

Yours sincerely,

TIDELANDS

RANDY HASKELL HAMILTON,
Director of Washington Office.

(1952) Whereas the several States, ther grantees, including many municipalities, port authorities and others, acting pursuant to authority granted by said States since July 4, 1776, or since the formation of said States and their admission to the Union, have exercised full powers of ownership and control of all lands beneath navigable waters within their respective boundaries and all natural resources, including fish and marine life, within such lands and waters, with the full acquiescence and approval of the Federal Government and in accordance with many pronouncements of the Supreme Court of the United States and decisions of the executive departments of the Federal Government that such lands and resources were vested in the respective States as an incident to State sovereignty; and the exercise of such powers of ownership and control has not in the past impaired or interfered with, and will not impair or interfere with, the exercise by the Federal Government of its constitutional powers in relation to said lands and navigable waters and to the control and regulation of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international relations; and

Whereas the several States, their grantees, including many municipalities, and public port authorities, acting pursuant to authority granted by said States, have expended enormous sums of money in improving and reclaiming said lands and in the construction of vast harbor, park, and recreational facilities thereon, in full reliance upon the validity of their titles; and

Whereas, in the cases of United States v. California (332 U. S. 19 (1947)), United States v. Louisiana (339 U. S. 699 (1950)), and United States v. Texas (339 U. S. 707 (1950)), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Government is possessed of "paramount rights in and full dominion and power over" the lands, minerals and other things underlying the so-called marginal sea and thereby made a distinction between said so-called marginal sea on the one hand and bays, ports, harbors, and other inland navigable waters on the other, and therein refused to apply the marginal sea rule of ownership which it has heretofore many times applied to bays, ports, harbors, and other inland waters, and in said cases held that the coastal States have no rights of ownership in the so-called marginal sea belt within their respective boundaries or the lands beneath it or reclaimed therefrom, or the natural resources in said waters and lands; and

Whereas for a period of 150 years prior to said decisions it had been judicially recognized by the courts and affirmed by executive departments of the Federal Government that the several States not only owned the tidelands and lands beneath bays, ports, harbors, and other inland navigable waters within their respective boundaries but also owned the lands beneath all navigable waters, including the so-called marginal sea belt, within their respective boundaries, whether inland or not, and that such State boundaries extended at least 3 miles seaward; and

Whereas the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States rendered in said three cases, together with subsequent pending proceedings in said California case, place in jeopardy the ownership, use, development and control of said tidelands, and submerged lands, together with vast port and harbor improvements constructed thereon; and the theory of paramount powers announced by said Court as the basis for the decisions in said cases constitutes a most serious precedent for use by the Federal Government in the seizure of property rights without just compensation guaranteed by the provisions of the fifth amendment to the Federal Constitution; and

Whereas in said decisions the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Government has paramount rights in and power over the marginal sea belt, without, however, holding that the Federal Government is the owner thereof; and said Court, in its decision in the California case, recognized that the

question of ownership and control of said submerged lands and natural resources therein is a legislative matter vested by the Constitution in the Congress of the United States, and it is desirable and in the public interest that the Congress of the United States shall exercise its constitutional powers in accordance with and not adversely to the heretofore recognized State ownership of such waters and the lands beneath them; and

Whereas this association has, by resolutions adopted at each annual convention over a period of years, supported and urged the Congress to enact legislation confirming vesting in the several States the title, ownership, and control of all lands beneath navigable waters within their respective boundaries; and Whereas such legislation was adopted by an overwhelming majority vote of the Members of both the House and the Senate of the 82d Congress and vetoed by the President; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Municipal Association advocates and urges that the Congress of the United States, without delay, during the 83d Congress, adopt legislation similar to Senate Joint Resolution 20 (the Holland bill), adopted by the 82d Congress and vetoed by the President, whereby the United States shall recognize, confirm, establish and vest in the several States, their grantees and successors in interest, the title, ownership, and control of all lands beneath all navigable waters within the boundaries of such States and in and to all natural resources within such lands and waters, and approve and confirm the boundaries of the several coastal States as extending at least 3 geographical miles seaward of the coast line and outside inland waters, and the boundaries of the several States on the Great Lakes to extend to the international boundary of the United States; and be it further

Resolved, That this association oppose any legislation authorizing any Federal department or agency to grant leases or exercise any proprietary rights in or to such lands or waters or in or to any natural resources therein.

Resolutions in support of this position were adopted in 1948, 1949, 1950, and

1951.

Mr. FOLEY. The next one is a letter to Mr. Reed from Dr. Olin S. Proctor, together with some statements. The letter is dated February 20, 1953.

Mr. GRAHAM. Without objection, it is admitted. (The document is as follows:)

Hon. CHAUNCY W. REED,

LONG BEACH 12, CALIF., February 20, 1953.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: Responsive to your letter of February 14, 1953:

For your convenience, whether Committee No. 1 holds hearings or not, I am sending you a copy of my statement to Senator Guy Cordon, acting chairman of submerged lands hearing.

Yours very truly,

Dr. O. S. PROCTOR.

LONG BEACH 12, CALIF., February 19, 1953.

Senator GUY CORDON,

Acting Chairman Submerged Lands Hearing,

Washington, D. C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to telegram of today, I am pleased to submit the following statement:

The essential function of government is to respect and protect boundaries, property, and property rights, including priorities and personal rights.

I have just returned from Seal Beach, investigating the matter of oil development in the harbor offshore of Seal Beach. I saw the workings of the Monterey Oil Co., apparently in the middle of the east end of the harbor. I learned work is now suspended by court order in the suit of Seal Beach v. Monterey Oil Co. It is reported the United States District engineer and the State of California issued permits for this operation. In this connection, it is important to note that the United States district engineer on protests of city of Long Beach and Los Angeles refused me a permit to build a working wharf 3 miles south of Belmont pier. My application was dated August 20, 1930. This is outside

the harbor, adjacent to the breakwater and would have been a benefit to navigation as a lighthouse.

Now they issue permit to put a dangerous obstruction in the middle of the harbor on which many millions have been spent. It would be noted the whole area of southern California is a health and recreation park for the United States and other countries, and these facilities should not be impaired.

I have contended intelligent legislation could not be formulated without conception of a suitable plan to develop these resources consistent with conditions. After many years of consideration, I have concluded tunneling is the best approach to the problem. I have proposed islands should be adjacent to the breakwater to provide for sinking shafts 1 mile apart along the breakwater. From these shafts at depths of 100 to 225 feet tunnels would be extended north and south at suitable distances, one-half to 1 mile, upraise from lower level to upper level would be made and excavated to form a drilling station to accommodate 100 wells to develop, by slant drilling, the entire area. Note the distance, 125 feet, between levels is height of usual derrick (see p. 13 of enclosed bookletnote last paragraph, p. 12).

Access is a prime consideration in any operation. This double line of tunnels provides a circuit for ventilation and may be extended several miles. The presumption is that the States may use the tunnels to the 3 mile or boundry line and Federal Government, and beyond this line by a working agreement.

In this arrangement the upper tunnel may be just below the floor of the ocean and used for transportation, while the lower would accommodate oil development. Subways are urgently needed here now. I am working on a hydraulic-tunneling system especially adapted to this purpose. The water lines would be formed in bottom of concrete lining and left for oil transportation.

Yours very truly,

Dr. OLIN S. PROCTOR.

Mr. FOLEY. The next one is a letter and resolution from the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. The letter is dated February 19, 1953.

Mr. GRAHAM. Without objection, it is admitted. (The document is as follows:)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS,

Hon. CHAUNCEY W. REED,

Washington, D. C., February 19, 1953.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. REED: I am enclosing herewith a copy of the resolution adopted by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers giving our position on the submerged-lands legislation, and I request that this resolution be made a part of the record of your committee's hearings. Similar resolutions have been presented by NIMLO at the hearings previously held on tidelands legislation and we respectfully refer to our testimony there rather than repeat it here as our position has always been that the tidelands belong to the States and our municipalities who are grantees of State titles to such lands.

The National Institute of Municipal Law Officers is an organization composed of 755 of the larger municipalities located in every State, the District of Columbia, and in the Territories. We are operated by the attorneys of our member municipalities and supported entirely by public tax funds. Our interest is in removing the cloud upon the title to city-owned land created by the Supreme Court decisions on this subject.

Respectfully,

DAVID M. PROCTOR, President.

RESOLUTION No. 8-TIDELANDS

Whereas the control of lands lying beneath tidal and navigable waters has been resolved against the States and political subdivisions thereof by the Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. California; and

Whereas Federal legislative action appears to be the sole remedy which States and cities have to secure title to these tidelands upon which billions of dollars have been expended by such State and local governments: Now therefore be it

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »