"3. This long-recognized rule of law, applicable to the waters and submerged lands of every State, has been destroyed and State titles clouded by the Supreme Court's tidelands decisions. The way has been opened for foreign nations to claim resources within our territorial waters. "4. Legislation is necessary for each of the 48 States in order to restore and confirm their ownership of navigable waters and submerged lands within their respective boundaries. 5. H. R. 4484, by WALTER, of Pennsylvania, restoring the law of State ownership of this property, applies not only to the 28 coastal and Great Lakes States but to each of the 48 States. "6. A quitclaim to the States is no gift. Equity and justice demand restoration of the property which the States have held and developed in good faith, reliance upon 53 previous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. "7. Nationalization of this property would result in less development of resources. The States and their local units of government are more closely concerned and better equipped to manage and develop the property, and State ownership has not interfered and would not interfere with the Federal powers of national defense, navigation, etc. "8. H. R. 4484, by WALTER, confirms State ownership of only those lands lying within original State boundaries. Nine-tenths of the Continental Shelf lies outside of original State boundaries and is vested by this bill in the Federal Government. "9. Congress, which has final power to act in this controversy, has been ignored and circumvented by executive officials in the attempted seizure of this property from the States. "10. 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. "11. The only oil lobby involved in this legislation is opposing State ownership in order to obtain cheap Federal leases. The idea of devoting revenues from these lands to Federal aid to education was originated by this lobby for use against State ownership legislation. "12. Each of the 48 States owns and possesses valuable submerged lands within its boundaries, the revenues from which are devoted to education and other important functions of State government. "Every State in our Nation has lands beneath navigable waters which produce valuable resources and revenues. A list of the States, showing the amount of acreage claimed by each, is printed on the opposite page. A map showing the relative areas is appended as the last page in this brief. "As shown in House and Senate committee hearings during the past 3 years, every State receives valuable revenues from these lands. Oil or oil lease revenues are now being received from submerged lands not only by Texas, Louisiana, and California, but also by Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland, Washington, Oregon, and the inland States of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Utah, West Virginia, and the Great Lakes States of Indiana and Michigan. "Oil is not the only resource being produced by the States from their submerged lands. Nature's law of compensation has cared equally well for those States whose rivers, lakes, and marginal seas have not yet been tapped for petroleum. Maine has its rich kelp beds on which leases have been made within its 3-mile marginal belt for production of iodine. Arizona, Kentucky, and Missouri sell sand and gravel from their river and lake beds; Colorado and Idaho lease their lands for gold production; Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island sell leases and permits for oyster, clam, and shellfish cultivation. Iowa, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia produce coal from their riverbeds, and Minnesota and Wisconsin have rich deposits of iron ore under the Great Lakes which lie partially within their boundaries. New York has millions invested on filled lands and within the marginal sea at Coney Island and on Long Island, and the same is true at Atlantic City in New Jersey and at Miami and other Florida resorts. "All of the States have one or more valuable resources within or beneath their submerged lands from which they are now receiving revenues for their schools or other public funds. All States are also jealous of their water and water rights in navigable streams, this being perhaps the most valuable resource of all, and it is one that the Department of Interior longs to control." STATEMENT OF CONSTANTINE N. PERKINS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND ITS BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Constantine N. Perkins. I am a deputy city attorney of the city of Los Angeles and one of the attorneys for the board of harbor commissioners of that city which board is the governing body of the port of Los Angeles acting under and pursuant to the provisions of a freeholder's charter adopted and approved by the laws of the State of California. Certain park and recreational facilities of said city are similarly placed under a board of recreation and park commissioners and certain sewer plants and submarine outfall extensions owned by said city are under the control and management of a board of public works. As a representative of the city of Los Angeles, I speak briefly for a large segment of the population of southern California of 2 million or more and a considerable area of that State bordering on harbors and bays as well as the so-called marginal sea, to urge the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 13. Los Angeles has enjoyed a remarkable growth during the past few years, and its problems are many and varied, not the least of which has resulted from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. State of California which has served to unsettle and confuse the seaward limits of San Pedro Bay and Los Angeles Harbor to the extent that we no longer know the limits of our jurisdiction and control over so-called inland waters. As the grantee of the State of California (Calif. Stat. 1911, p. 1256; 1917, p. 159; 1929, p. 1085), the city of Los Angeles is the owner of all "tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled; within the present boundaries of said city, situated below the line of mean high tide of the pacific Ocean, or of any harbor, estuary, bay, or inlet within said boundaries, to be forever held by said city and its successors, in trust for," certain purposes including commerce, navigation, and fishery. Heretofore, the boundaries of the city have been considered to extend 3 miles seaward to the State boundary. Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the State of California did not own the so-called marginal sea, a strip or belt of water and submerged land 3 nautical miles in width, lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of California and outside of the inland waters of the State, and the exact delineation of its inland waters remains undetermined, the title of its grantee to much of the shore line of the city of Los Angeles including coastal and harbor areas, is under active dispute. If the limits of Los Angeles Harbor are not exactly delineated in accordance with the boundaries heretofore accepted and established, many valuable port improvements may be placed in jeopardy, and if the boundaries of the marginal sea excluding the 3-mile belt are to be determined as of 1850, the year of California's admission to the Union, then the title of many areas of reclaimed submerged lands which are no longer part of the sea at all may be upset. This threat, coupled with the actual loss of the marginal sea itself, unless the proposed bill is enacted, will have the effect of stifling local municipal improvements for the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation of the United States and of the recreational, sanitary, and various other requirements of the people of the Los Angeles area. In order to point out the extent of the present uncertainties of title, as between the State of California and the United States, relative to navigable waters, and the effect thereof upon the interest of the State's grantee, city of Los Angeles, a brief outline of the harbor and shoreline facilities follows: Fifty-odd years ago Los Angeles had no harbor other than an open roadstead in San Pedro Bay and a shallow meandering channel capable of floating shallowdraft vessels. With the completion of the first breakwater in 1912 it had annexed the sufficient territory and quieted title to all tidelands necessary to construct a manmade harbor covering 2,780 acres with 28 miles of available water frontage of which over 13 miles are occupied by wharves, transit sheds and other improvements valued at about $50,000,000 financed from municipal bond funds and revenues. Currently cargo handling runs about 15,000,000 tons annually from approximately 3,500 seagoing ship movements. Present construction estimates for port expansion necessary to supply the needs of the area served during the next 10 years will cost as much more as has been spent to date. In addition to these expenditures, some $70,000,000 have been spent by the city of Los Angeles and surrounding communities along its coastline for sanitary, recreational, and other improvements, title to which is jeopardized by the Supreme Court decision in the California case. As a practical matter, and for purposes of navigation, the boundary line between inland waters and the open sea is established by the San Pedro breakwater and its extension. However, we cannot prognosticate where the court may fix this line, and the uncertainty of delineating the extent of inland waters with respect to a constructed breakwater is apparent. If the location of the line of cleavage is to be determined as of 1850 when California was admitted as a State, there were no breakwaters, and in years to come they may be destroyed by the action of the sea. Terminal Island now containing hundreds of acres of reclaimed submerged lands and a Government-owned navy yard and airfield once was a narrow sand spit. We feel that the legal fiction of locating the line of inland waters now in the process of being answered by the Supreme Court, can best be fixed and determined by Congress in adopting such a bill as Senate Joint Resolution 13. It should be remembered that the city of Los Angeles has invested large sums of public money in good faith and its investments should, in good conscience, be protected. The city has performed its obligations with respect to all construction requirements laid down by the Federal Government, and was justified in relying on the integrity of previous declarations of the Supreme Court determining such vested property rights. Now the integrity of such title is threatened unless the proposed or similar legislation is enacted. While many of the aforementioned improvements are located within the socalled stipulated line, and inside the breakwater, which, in the case of San Pedro Bay, has been designated by the special master as the limit of inland waters, much filled land and many publicly owned structures and facilities are located seaward and extend out into what is generally referred to as the 3-mile belt. Due to the lack of specific delineation of San Pedro Bay and Santa Monica Bay, the title to these facilities and improvements is further complicated. A master plan of shoreline development has been underway in Los Angeles County for some 10 years and the magnitude of the improvements along the bays of Santa Monica and San Pedro, presently completed or in contemplation, involves the estimated expenditure of more than $100 million, of which between $50 and $60 million will be for fills and improvements on what are now tide and submerged lands in said 2 bays. Of the 65.39 miles of beaches involved in said plan, 27.69 miles are already publicly owned valued at over $15 million and a large portion of these beaches lie within the boundaries of the city of Los Angeles. Some of the reclamation presently underway involves a fill of 14,000,000 cubic yards of tide and submerged lands seaward of the line of mean high tide and will extend several blocks into what are now submerged lands. In San Pedro Bay, the city of Los Angeles has completed $200,000 of fill out into that bay along Cabrillo Beach just outside the breakwater enclosing Los Angeles Harbor, where it joins the coast east of Point Fermin. A portion of this filled area is even now being claimed by the Federal Government as lying outside of San Pedro Bay and the city cannot, therefore, proceed with said improvement with any degree of security. It is impractical to list only improvements constructed or contemplated by the city of Los Angeles on tidelands without referring to such improvements located in contiguous areas. A partial list of existing and contemplated improvements located or planned to be located on the tide and submerged lands of Santa Monica Bay only, including recreational, sanitary, and other facilities, together with their estimated values, follows: 1. EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED VALUES (a) City of Redondo Beach: Public: Groins__. Recreational pier.. Breakwater__. Seawall --- Private: Fishing pier---. Salt-water intake and pumphouse for steam (The plant of the Southern California Edison Co. (b) City of Hermosa Beach: Public: Recreation pier--(c) City of Manhattan Beach: Public: Recreation pier. $28,000 68, 000 539, 000 167,000 50,000 1,340, 000 175,000 135,000 1. EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED VALUES-continued (d) City of El Segundo: Public (owned by Reconstruction Finance Corporation): Private (Standard Oil Co. of California): Wharf, oil (Refinery, storage tanks, and other facilities cover an (e) City of Los Angeles (southeast of Santa Monica): Hyperion sewage treatment plant, including a 12-foot (The plant, located partially on tidelands, is now (h) Unincorporated territory (west of Los Angeles city): Private: Malibu pier---. 45, 000 654, 000 41, 000, 000 3,518, 000 90,000 510, 000 52, 000 200, 000 15, 000, 000 75,000 415,000 300, 000 690,000 40,000 3,200,000 5,000 500,000 1,700,000 500,000 30,000 132, 000 Existing improvements, total___ 70, 708, 000 2. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED VALUES City of Los Angeles: Frontage, 9 miles. City of Santa Monica: Frontage, 3 miles. Unincorporated territory: Frontage, 1 mile. Sewers and pumping plants__. Storm drains and pumping plants- Streets and roadway structures.. Picnic areas. Buildings___ Miscellaneous recreation facilities_ Landscaping___ Yacht harbor entrance jetties---. Planned improvements, total--- (The proposed yacht harbor, called Marina del Rey, is estimated to cost $29,672,000, with a capacity for mooring 8,000 small craft. It is also planned to develop the beaches between El Segundo and Palos Verdes at an estimated cost of about $22,000,000.) 3. WATERFRONT OWNERSHIP (The amount of frontage in public and private ownership and estimated value, are given for each political subdivision.) (a) City of Palos Verdes Estates: Public, 25,000 feet_. Private___ (The above frontage is a narrow strip between the foot of high bluffs and the mean high tide line.) (b) City of Torrance : Public, 757 feet_. Private, 3,312 feet. (c) City of Redondo Beach: Public, 12,708 feet_. Private, 1,450 feet. (d) City of Hermosa Beach : Public, 9,275 feet- Private, 420 feet.. (e) City of Manhattan Beach : Public, 9,700 feet_. Private (f) El Portal (unincorporated territory): Public, 1,328 feet Private_ (g) City of El Segundo: Public Private, 4,400 feet---. (h) City of Los Angeles (southeast of Santa Monica): Public, 31,312 feet_. Private, 2,111 feet (1,431 feet of the private frontage is being acquired at an estimated cost of $459,000.) (i) City of Santa Monica : Public, 6,944 feet_ Private, 8,031 feet-. (j) City of Los Angeles (west of Santa Monica): Public, 14,905 feet. Private, 2,044 feet- (543 feet of the private frontage is being acquired at an at an estimated cost of $218,000.) $14,793, 000 3,386, 000 2,052, 000 5,588, 000 5,675,000 15, 896, 000 1,986,000 38,000 145, 000 5, 161, 000 754, 000 2, 896, 000 2, 167, 000 60, 537, 000 $150,000 None 30,000 242, 000 970,000 935, 000 1, 110, 000 87,000 1,363, 000 None 160,000 None None 880, 000 3,048, 000 859, 000 1,958, 000 6, 224, 000 3,336, 000 964, 000 |