The opinion
On Rehearing
FOURNET, Chief Justice.
We granted a rehearing primarily because of the importance of this case, and also in view of certain expressions in the-Report of the Special Master adopted by the United States Supreme Court in the case of State of Mississippi v. State of Louisiana, the decree in that case appearing at 350 U. S. 5 , 76 S.Ct. 29 , 100 L.Ed. 6 . 1 In brief on rehearing counsel for the State concedes that the facts as stated by the trial judge. *941 and adopted in our original opinion are essentially and substantially correct, but urges that the Court erred in holding Deer Park Bend to be a stream rather than a cut-off lake, and alternatively — even if that ruling be correct — in applying Article 509 of the •Civil Code, since here the works of man, by making an artificial avulsion in the river, reversed the natural processes and were the primary cause of the alluvion being formed.
At issue in this concursus proceeding is the ownership of funds derived from two oil wells. Carter-State No. 1 well is directionally drilled from the bank, with its bottom hole in what was once the main channel of the Mississippi River, but which is now land formed by accretion along the water’s edge of a tract known as Roseland Plantation; Orren James No. 1 well is located on the high bank, but was unitized under a forty-acre unit of which eleven acres fall in what was once the bed of the river. Carter-State No. 1 well was probably drilled in late 1951, about a year after completion of the Orren James well, since this proceeding is concerned with funds derived from production beginning, in the case of Carter-State, on January 7, 1952, and in the case of Orren James, on February 27, 1951. Rival claimants for the funds are, on the one hand, the State of Louisiana, State Mineral Board and Register of the State Land Office, based on the State’s ownership of the river bed by virtue of inherent sovereignty, and, on the other hand, private owners of fractional mineral interests, whose claim is that the land is true alluvion and belongs to the owners of Rose-land Plantation by virtue of law.
The Louisiana Civil Code defines alluvion as “The accretions, which are formed successively and imperceptibly to any soil situated on the shore of a river or other stream,” and declares “The alluvion belongs to the owner of the soil situated on the edge of the water, whether it be a river or stream, and whether the same be navigable or not, who is bound to leave public that portion of the bank which is required by law for the public use.” Article 509. This article and the one which follows (Article 510), declaring a similar rule with respect to derelictions, are found under the title “Of Ownership” in the chapter concerned with the right of accession in relation to immovables. These articles are exactly the same as articles in our Codes of 1825 and 1808, and were taken almost verbatim from the French Civil Code (C. N., Articles 556 and 557). A difference between the Codes of Louisiana and France is noted in the omission from the Louisiana Code of the succeeding article of the French Code, expressly exempting lakes from the laws of alluvion and dereliction ; 2 however, under the jurisprudence of this Court, those *943 rights of accession have been limited to lands abutting “a river or other stream” and held to find no application to lakes. 3 Further, it has been held that lands reclaimed or suddenly formed by artificial process with public money or under public authority, though in a river, do not qualify as alluvion, 4 and the language of the Code requiring that the accretions be formed “successively and imperceptibly” to soil on the shore has been strictly construed.
Under the jurisprudence of France, the same rule has been frequently enunciated. Decisions dealing with the corresponding article of the Code Napoleon held that alluvion which formed in a river as a result of works executed by man or at the expense of the State belonged to the riparian owners in the same manner as that which was formed naturally, providing only that the formation should have taken place successively and imperceptibly; but held otherwise in cases where, as a result of artificial works, accretion formed perceptibly and instantaneously. 5 This result is correct, according to the reasoning of some French commentators, because the text of the Code has no regard for the cause which produces the accretion, considers only the mode of its formation; and to require that the alluvion should result from the sole action of nature would add to the text in an unwarranted manner, thereby placing a new restrictive condition on the rights of the riparian owners without authority of law. 6
Counsel for the State and its agencies, in support of their primary contention, i. e., that Deer Park Bend is a lake, argues that the bendway ceased to be a part of the Mississippi River and became a cut-off lake “when current ceased to flow in low water stages, and at that point as a matter of law *945 the waters of the hendway became stagnant.” This, he asserts, was the holding in State of Mississippi v. State of Louisiana, supra, which case involved a cut-off .and abandoned channel of the Mississippi River similar to that with which we are here concerned. 7
Briefly, the development of Glasscock ■Cutoff, following the initial dredging of a pilot channel in 1933 joining the two ends of the horseshoe-shaped portion of the river known as Deer Park Bend, extended •over a period of years, during which water flowed through the cutoff only at times; .and even after continuous flow was established, considerable additional work was necessary until at least 1939, during which period Deer Park Bend had continued to be the main channel of commerce on the river. In 1940 the cutoff became effective to the extent that it was capable of carrying the flow of the river at low stage; navigation lights were removed from the bend-way, but it was still used by commerce, particularly by tows, because of the swift current in the cutoff. According to estimates based on Mean Sea Level elevations at Glasscock, in 1940 and 1941 there were some days when no flow occurred around the bendway, but in 1942 the flow was again probably continuous; and in September of that year a closure was constructed across the upper end of the bendway in an effort to withstand the low water season, thus to divert as much water as possible through the cutoff and at the same time to assist in enlargement of that channel. In December, 1942, due to high water, most of the closure was washed out, but evidently the purpose of the project had been accomplished. Thereafter, according to estimates by the experts who testified, the days when no flow occurred around the bendway varied with the stages of the river. About 1946 a closure in the form of a sandbar was first apparent at the mouth or lower end of the bendway, off Roseland Plantation (the location of the oil wells concerned in this *947 case); prior to that time the volume of the flow around the bendway channel had kept material from backing up into the lower end and forming a fill. Meanwhile, the upper arm of the bendway, having received the greater amount of deposition, had filled considerably, and that portion of the former bed of the river has progressively become dry. However, water has run through Deer Park Bend every year, and is still doing so at the present time, when the river is at its stage lower than that necessary to reach the levee.
For purposes of disposing of the State’s contention that the laws relating to alluvion do not apply because Deer Park Bend was, as a matter of law, a “cut-off lake” and not a stream, under the facts shown by the record in this case we might concede the correctness of what was said in the Special Master’s Report (quoted in footnote 7), because the test “when current ceased to flow in low water stages in the bend” if applied here shows that, according to uncontradict testimony based on calculations as to rate of deposition, the bendway had closed at mean low water by “about 1946,” though it could have been one year either way; yet at least three years before that date, i. e., in 1942, according to the evidence, a fence between Roseland and Point Pleasant plantations (adjoining on the south) was extended to the river’s edge over a “bar” of soil then above water,, which “bar” at that time extended probably a hundred yards further toward the water than the present surface location of the bottom hole of Carter-State No. 1 well. Comparison of maps in evidence, some of which are shown here, 8 which are said to give a general picture of changes that took place-in the vicinity of Glasscock Cutoff and the old bendway over the period from 1933 to-1955, indicate a wide, water-filled channel through Deer Park Bend in 1945 and later, while estimates of the expert witnesses are-to the effect that the greatest deposit of silt took place as the cutoff was developing (i. e., in the years following 1933), and that when the flow of water became intermittent, the deposit of silt in the bendway naturally began to decrease; all of which clearly shows that alluvion had already formed over what became the bottom hole location of Carter-State No. 1 well while water was still flowing continuously through Deer Park Bend.
But we should not fail to note the inaptness of the observations of the Special Master to the instant case. His purpose, in seeking the boundary between two states, was to determine when the bendway ceased
*949
*951 to be the main navigable channel of the river — that being the crux of the matter since the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court - decreed that the river’s new bed, even though it had resulted from a natural avulsion, worked no change in the boundary between the states of Mississippi and Louisiana. He observed that although such boundary may shift, being affected as it is by natural processes of erosion and accretion, and although it follows always the varying center of the channel, in a case where the river left its old channel and sought a new bed the boundary became fixed at the thalweg or middle of the main navigable channel as it last existed before the sudden change — followed by the gradual filling of the old bed. This explains the pertinence of his conclusion that accretion ceases to apply when there is no longer a current through the old bendway at low water stages. Such a requirement is not found in Article 509 of the Civil Code, nor, so far as we are aware, under the jurisprudence interpreting that article. In our original opinion we approved the trial judge’s conclusion that Deer Park Bend became a stream after it ceased to be a part of the river; that conclusion, he stated, was strengthened by the rationale of the case of Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. State Mineral Board, 203 La. 473 , 14 So.2d 61 , as shown by the quotation in our original opinion. Nothing has been said to cause us to change our view.
The State’s alternative contention — that in any event the Court erred in applying-Article 509 of the Civil Code because the process that took place in the bendway was-not true accretion, but was rather the direct result of artificial avulsion — is also-based on language in the Special Master’s-Report in State of Mississippi v. State of Louisiana, supra, in which it is said that when a river has changed its course “the gradual filling up of the bed that ensues is not to be treated as an accretion to the shores but as an ultimate effect of the avulsion.” This is obviously correct since the river boundary between states does vary with the “gradual process of erosion and accretion” in the boundary stream (as observed by the Special Master); but once the boundary has become fixed because of the fact that the old channel is no longer the main navigable channel, it follows that the filling of the bed cannot be treated as an accretion so as to affect the boundary. Moreover, counsel admits that in the cases of Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. State Mineral Board, supra, and St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46 , 90 U.S. 46 , 23 L.Ed. 59 , the laws of accretion were applied to rivers and streams even though the works of man contributed to the changes, but seeks to draw a distinction by asserting that in the case at bar the changes *953 were primarily caused by the works of man. No authority is cited supporting the distinction; and in the St. Clair County case, supra, the United States Supreme Court (as noted in our original opinion, footnote 4) laid down the test for “gradual and imperceptible,” and observed that “Whether it [alluvion] is the effect of natural or artificial causes makes no difference. The result as to the ownership in either case is the same.”
A supplemental brief has been filed by the State in which it is contended that the year 1941 is the critical date in this suit; that it was during 1941 when flow ceased around the bendway at low water stages; that, from testimony and data in the record, the bottom hole location of Carter-State No. 1 well was below mean low water mark in 1941; and the position of the State is summarized thus: “Up until 1941 the doctrine of accretion applied. According to the [United States] Supreme Court’s interpretation, when water no longer flowed at the low water level the waters in the old bendway became stagnant as a matter of law and the doctrine of accretion ceased to apply.” We think this has been answered by what is said above, and that further comment is unnecessary.
For the foregoing reasons and those previously assigned, our original opinion and decree are reinstated as the final judgment of this Court.
. This was an original action in the United States Supreme Court. By Order of October 26, 1953 ( 346 U.S. 862 , 74 S.Ct. 102 , 98 L.Ed. 374 ), D. K. McKamy, Esquire, of Birmingham, Alabama, was appointed Special Master to make findings of fact, state his conclusions of law thereon, and draft a recommended decree. The Court adopted but did not reproduce the report; the decree alone was approved and reproduced, in which “the true boundaries between the States of Mississippi and Louisiana at the places involved in this case” were found and concluded. A copy of the Master’s Report has been furnished in this proceeding for the convenience of the Court.
. Art. 558, French Civil Code (Richards Tr. of the Official Ed. of 1804) : “Alluvion does not take place with respect to lakes and ponds, the proprietor of *943 which preserves always the land which the water covers when it is at the pond’s full height, even though the volume of water should be diminished.
“In like manner the proprietor of a pond acquires no right over land bordering on his pond which may happened to be covered by an extraordinary flood.”
. Zeller v. Southern Yacht Club, 34 La. Ann. 837 ; Slattery v. Arkansas Natural Gas Co., 138 La. 793 , 70 So. 806 ; Bank of Coushatta v. Yarborough, 139 La. 510 , 71 So. 784 ; Miami Corporation v. State, 186 La. 784 , 173 So. 315 ; Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. State Mineral Board, 203 La. 473 , 14 So.2d 61 .
. St. Anna’s Asylum v. City of New Orleans, 104 La. 392 , 29 So. 117 ; Heirs of Leonard v. City of Baton Rouge, 39 La.Ann. 275 , 4 So. 241 , on rehearing 39 La.Ann. at page 285 , 4 So. at page 246; see, also, Bruning v. City of New Orleans, 165 La. 511 , 115 So. 733 .
. Code Civil Annote par Fuzier-Herman (1885), t. 1, Art. 556, annotations under See. 2 at p. 748; Dalloz Repertoire de Législation, de Doctrine et de Jurisprudence (1885), t. 38, Propriete, p. 280 et seq., esp. secs. 496 and 497 at p. 289; Codes Annotes de Sirey (1875), t. 1, Art. 556, annotations at pp. 253-254.
. For example, see F. Laurent, Principes de Droit Civil Frangais (3e éd. 1878), t. 6, See. 283, p. 365 et seq., and numerous French authorities whose views are summarized in the text.
. Counsel relies particularly on certain language found in the Report of the Special Master, adopted by the United States Supreme Court, wherein he observed: “I believe that when the old channel has so far deteriorated and become so filled by deposition as that it can no longer be used for navigation except in times of flood, it no longer has a thalweg. When the filling has proceeded to the point that no water can enter the channel at low stages of the river, which are normal during certain periods of the year, there is then no current in the old channel and the water has become stagnant.
“When this occurs (while at the same time the river itself remains a wide, deep, swiftly flowing stream capable of navigation at all stages), the old channel is no longer a part of the main river, even though water may flow during a part of the year in the old channel during periods of high water. The old channel is then no more a part of the river than the thousands of sloughs and swales found all up and down the Mississippi River which act as channels to carry flood waters from the river during high stages.” Page 10, Report of Special Master.
. The year is indicated in the lower right-hand corner of each map. For the purpose of showing the location of the alluvion here concerned, we have indicated the approximate spot by arrow and circle on the 1949 map; it can be observed, however, on earlier maps, in lesser quantity.