# Memorandum — UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA (No. 0026-74)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1630%3A047

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Memorandum
- **Published:** January 1, 1955

## Text

INDEX

II. The three-league limitation of the Submerged
TAD. DO ana. een ig dincensiin nines gun vitiinmpeeinlamiasteimnien

I ak a ceundansicecniceciionctaiglenetrite ip daanlgninn es is talakgone ation Medboaslempiede

CITATIONS

Nases :

United States vy. California, 381 U.S. 139_..-------
United States v. California, 382 U.S. 448_--.--------
United States y. Florida, 363 U.S. 121--------------
United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S, 1--------------
United States v. Louisiana, 364 U.S. 502_-----------
United States vy. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 288_-----------

United States v. Louisiana, 389 U.S. 155_-------- 22,
Statutes and treaties:

Convention of April 25, 1838, between the United
States and the Republic of Texas, 8 Stat. 511_------
Convention on the Continental Shelf, 15 U.S.T. (Pt.

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone, Article 6, 15 U.S.T. (Pt. 2) 1609..........
Treaty of January 12, 1828, between the United States

Act of July 5, 1848, 9 Stat. 245..........-.........-
Louisiana Admission Act of April 8, 1812, 2 Stat. 701-
Louisiana Enabling Act of February 20, 1811, 2 Stat.
OFF (eeecnSee asap naan eee ere anne is
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, 48
BD ER c.> ee OA in witch eninshincei deabiaeeiaeina aah ltetensas
Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, 48 U.S.C. 1301-
BGO, cc cer ae ee none eee Same ae

312-855—68——-1

12

Il
Statutes and treaties—-Continued
Submerged Lands Act—Continued Pay
I a os cc ccunne 18, 23,9
§2(a), 43 U.S.C. 1301(a)--------------------- 23,2
eo ee Pk ee) | ) 13, 17, 24,9
$9ic). 48 USC. 1801(c)....-..--------- 1,2, 8, 24,4
ee I op ut einmeen 18, 2
ene RR eee
LR I ae ame 8, 12,5
Act of December 19, 1836, 1 Laws Rep. Tex. 133_ 13,1
Act of November 24, 1849, Laws, Third Texas
Rs OB, Wi Bas on ence eee ne wn ;
Miscellaneous :
> tee, Bee. 4116-4118... 2... inne sess

Mitchell and Simmons, The State Coordinate Systems
(Dept. of Commerce Spee. Pub. No. 235, 1957)---- |
1 Shalowitz, Shore and Sea Boundaries (1962) -----

EST OR, sR EID hs

OPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

O 3

Jn the Supreme Court of the United States

OcTOBER TERM, 1968

No. 9, ORIGINAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF
v.

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL,
PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE

For the purpose of giving effect to the conclusions
f this Court as stated in its opinion announced De-
ember 4, 1967, supplementing the decree entered
erein on December 12, 1960, it is ordered, adjudged
nd decreed as follows:

1. As against the State of Texas, the United States
sentitled to—

(a) All the lands, minerals and other natural re-
murees underlying the Gulf of Mexico that are more
ian three marine leagues gulfward from the present
r future coast line as referred to in § 2(¢) of the Sub-
rerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1301(¢) ; and
(b) All the lands, minerals and other natural re-
surees underlying the Gulf of Mexico, more than
ree geographical miles gulfward from the present or
iture coast line as referred to in §2(¢) of the Sub-

(1)

* haha ee
oa

9

a

merged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1301(¢), that are gulf.
ward of the following line:

Beginning at a point on the international boundary
with Mexico, three marine leagues gulfward from the
point x=2,447,717, y=104,830 (Texas Plane Coordi
nate System, South Zone), latitude 25°56'54.30” N,
longitude 97°08’15.50’" W., and proceeding thene
northwardly and eastwardly as follows:

South Zone
Course Latitude Longtitude
7 ad y
3 1. By are centered st............----- 2, 447, 083 105,994 25°5705.00 + 97°08"22.85"
. Mh re G2 nats sadensaacunaneer 2, 498, 223 125,226 26°00/10.50 — 96°58"59.59”
: 2. By straight line to. ............--.- 2, 498, 068 126,760 26°0025.80 96°59’01.09”
A 3. By arc centered at..........------- 2, 443, 661 121,256 25°50’37.4’ 97°08’ 58.0"
" ay te tan ae aie eae 2, 497, 383 131,474 26°01'12.56" — 96°59’07.98"
3 4, By straight Mee te... -.....-.-.-5-% 2, 497, 076 135,704 26°01'54.49" § 96°59’10.78”
3 5. By straight line to..........-..---- 2, 497, 119 137,947 26°02'16.70’" —-96°59’10.02"
4 6. By straight line to............-.--- 2,497, 240 139,652 26°02'33.58"" — 98°50’08.47"
3 7. By are centered at... ...--- spines 2, 442, 693 143, 530 26°03/18.1" —-97°09'06.0”
% “a Gaitie Pe ih! Sk EES a TS 2, 496, 042 150,421 26°04’20.26" — 96°59’10.32"
4 8. By straight line to........... shies 2, 496, 723 152,145 26°04’37.36” 96°50'12.50"
2 9. By arc centered at... .......------- 2, 442, 474 145, 254 26°03’35.2’ 97°00'08.2”
ae Os eee 2, 496, 370 154,510 26°05'00.83" 96°60’16.00"
3 10. By straight line to........-...----- 2, 495, 553 159, 267 26°05'48.04” — 96°59'24.39”
g 11. By arc centered at .....--.--------- 2, 441, 657 150,011 26°04'22.4’ 97°09 16.6”
Z MANE BASE REE EE 2, 495, 161 161,316 26°06'08.37" — 96°50’28.42”
¢ 12. By straight line to.......--.--..--- 2, 494, 875 162, 668 26°0621.79 — 96°50°31.38"
F 13. By straight line to...-..-..-------- 2, 494, 746 163, 636 26°06’31.39 96°59’32.67"
FS 14. By straight line to.........--.----. 2,492, 451 182,957 26°09'43.01" -96°59'55.32’
3 15. By arc centered at.....-..-.------- 2, 438, 148 176,509 26°08’45.2” —-97°08'52.0”
; as wer ooeenions 2, 492, 330 183,907 26°09'52.44” 96°50'56.52"
* 16. By straight line to.........-.------ 2, 490, 612 196,490 26°11'57.26” 97°00'13.74"
4 17. By are centered at_.....--....----- 2, 436, 430 139,092 26°10/50.0” —-97°10/09.4”
a ESET ECE AAO aH 2, 490, 574 196,764 26°11'59.99 — 97°00'14.12"
% 18. By straight line to.....--..-------- 2, 488, 714 209,890 26°14'10.20' — 97°00'32.84""
4 19. By arc centered at..........---.--- 2, 434, 570 202,218 26°13'00.2’ 97°10/28.3"
4 iecertacos EET Re ere 2, 488, 423 211,722 26°14'28.37" — 97°00'35.80"
a 20. By straight line to.......---.------ 2, 486, 399 223,191 26°16'22.20 — 97°00'56.54"
% 21. By are centered at__.....-.------.- 2, 432, 546 213,687 26°14'54.0' 97°10/ 49.2"
s RA ES SERRE See 2, 486, 322 223,615 26°16'26.40" — 97°00'57.33"
% 22. By straight line to...........----.- 2, 484, 084 235,738 26°18'26.73’ — 97°01'20.36"
> 23. By are centered at. .........------- 2, 430, 308 225,810 26°1654.3” 97°11'12.4"
4 SERS SHS FEE EES eames eee 2, 483, 535 238,353 26°18'52.60" 97°01 26.05”
% 24. By straight line to. ................ 2, 478, 947 257,823 26°22’06.05'" 97°02’ 13.99”
i 25. By arc centered at. ........-.-.---- 2, 425, 720 245,280 26°20/07.6’ 97°12/00.6”
. EE Se AIRES He 2, 478, 775 258,531 26°2213.09" — 97°02'15.79"
2 26. By straight line to. .-......-.--.--- 2, 475, 739 270,687 26°24'13.83" 97°02" 47.63"
es 27. By are centered at .......--..-.---- 2, 422, 684 257,436 26°22'08.3"” 97°12/32.6"
a ESS SRR, Sa ae ee 2, 475, 708 270,811 26°24’15.06 97°02"47.96"
= 28. By straight line to.....-..--.------ 2, 472, 116 285,051 26°26736.50" — 97°03"25.67"
* 29. By are centered at_........-------- 2, 419, 092 271,676 26°2420.7 —-97713°10.5""
2 We ee eek ace eeies 2, 471, 287 287,900 26°27705.71% 97°03'34.42"
KE 30. By straight line to. . ............... 2, 466, 585 303,033 26°20'35.22’’ 97°04'24.28"
4 31. By straight line to. .....--.--.----- 2, 461, 419 319,706 26°32'20.92 — 97°05'19.08"
>
0. ” ene Cetitered Of. ooo. 22. ccuccci 2, 384, 205 380,784 26°42/33.7” 97°19'23.0/"
pppedtahekdsbebubhdiiwsesidaneeon 2, 435, 953 398, 463 26°45'23.70’ 97°09'50.30’"
i. na straight line to 2, 435, 511 399,759 26°45'36.57” 97°09'55. 03’”
2. By straight line to 2, 432, 474 410, 567 26°47'23.4’’ 97°10/27.28”
3. By straight line to 2, 427, 617 431,540 26°50'52.15” 97°L1'18.47”"
4. By straight line to 2, 424, 278 447,618 26°53'31.78” 97°11'53.51"
§. By straight line to............... ve 2, 422, 538 459, 109 26°55'25.72" 97°12/11.42""
6. a ay eee 2, 368, 469 450,923 26°54'09.8” 97°22/09.6""
Lerbekbee chen tac edaseactacatchtean 2, 422, 177 461,213 26°55'46.59” 97°12'15.17”
(7. oe STNG BO Ss 55k ence cecase 2, 421, 519 468, 580 26°56/11.43” 97°12'22.16’
®. By are centered at. ................ 2, 367, 051 463,714 26°56'16.6/ 97°22'24.0"
Mids egreanekekivabvsanes whe saves 2, 421, 383 469,914 26°57'12.85” 97°12/22.95'"
. By straight line rigstineetteuntc 2, 420, 872 474, 392 26°57’57.25” 97°12’28.00'
0. By are centered at. ................ 2, 366, 540 468,192 26°57’01.0” 97°22’29.2"
Wiese wiaCtdddnowenseats wade tbasevide 2, 420, 613 476, 347 26°58'16.64” 97°12'30.73”
eo gt a ar 2, 419, 889 487,832 27°00'10.46” 97° 1237.44”
2. By straight line to. ................ 2, 419, 593 493,822 27°01'09.82” 97'12'40.04"
3. By straight line to. ................ 2, 419, 571 498,661 27°01'57.74” 97°12'39.73""
4. By are centered at. ...............- 2, 304, 887 498,418 27°02'00.5’" 97°22'44.5"
Seiad iad s CASRN nwENs ok pate 2, 419, 564 499, 351 27°02’04.57” 97°12'39.74”"
5. By straight line to. ........-2...... 2, 419, 442 506, 501 27°03'15.40’ 97°12'40.28”
6. By straight line to....__. re 2, 419, 750 514,047 27°04'30.10" 97°1236.02""
7. By straight line to................. 2,419, 951 517,831 27°O5'07.56" 97°12’33.36'"
B. By straight line to................. 2, 420, 165 521,009 27°05'39.01" 97°12'30.64”
0. By arc centered ef.......-......... 2, 365, 603 524, 676 27°06'20.5" 97°22’34.0"
Meet haw ass chtewhwaiwees scanyats 2, 420, 260 522,916 27°05'57.88’" 97°12'29.38""
0. By straight line DE Has iieceakenkes 2, 420, 367 526,247 27°06'30.86'’ 97°32/27.81""
1. By straight line to............._- ‘ 2, 421, 336 538,406 27°08’31.18" 97°12’15.70"
& By are centered at..........22..... 2, 366, 824 542,751 27°00'19.4" 97°22/18.7”
Bs i waitin hia aS atanoacs 2,421, 429 539, 789 oc $4.87” 97°12'14.52""
3. By straight line ae one ees 2, 421, 449 540, 167 27°08'48.61"" 97°12'14.25'’
Dg | ha eae 2, 421, 591 540,986 27°08'56.71'" 97°12'12.59""
5. By arc centered at............... ‘ 2, 367, 705 550,301 27°10/34.1’ 97°22'08.2”
55: iy nadex Shite 2, 422, 109 544,769 27°09'34.13” 97°12'06.42’"
4. By straight line ae ig Daal aa oie 2, 422, 522 548,828 27°10'14.2R8”" 97°12'01.39'’
7. By straight line to. ._.... 2, 422, 909 550,953 27°10'35.28” 97°11'56.86""
8. By are centered at. kvgier 2, 369, 110 560,755 27°12/17.5"" 97°21'51.6"
eee sn ive 2,423, 074 551,906 27°10'44.71” 97°11'54.92"
». By st raight line to. 2, 423, 600 555,114 27°11'16.42” 97°11'48.73""
). By straight line to. - bea 2,425, 604 565,501 27°12'59.09"" 97°11'25.35”"
1. By straight line to. _ ‘ : 2,425, 955 567,201 27°33'15.88"’ 97°11'21.27”
2. By straight line to. ..__- —s 2, 430, 188 585,397 27°16'15.65'" 97°10'32.26’"
}. By straight line te. ___. oe 2, 435, 271 602,898 27°19'08.44" 97°09'33.87""
t. By straight line to. ................ 2, 437, 860 611,265 27°20'31.02’" 97°00'04.17""
5. Sy ctrpight line to... ..-..- cscs. 2, 440, 77 619,882 27°21'56.05" 97°08'30.84
3. By straight line to................ 2, 443, 622 627,687 27°23'13.04’" 97°07'58.31"
?. By straight line to............... E 2,449, 412 641,292 27°25'27.14” 97°06'52.41"
3. By straight line to... __- asdcawcce 2, 455, 945 656,139 27°27'53.45’ 97°05'38.08""
9. By straight line to. .............. 2, 459, 158 2,847 27°28'59.52" 97°05'01.59”"

AGS A AN IG a PEL LT NATL I EAGER EIRP PA DIAS D LEER IOS CG ST URL A NOBLE lg 8 AA LA AGS Pn Be

4
South Zone
Course Latitude Longitude
Zz y
80. By straight line to. .....-.--------- 2, 460, 858 666,346 27°29'33.99" 97°04'42.27"
$1. By are centered at. ---.------------ 2, 419, 058 701,605 27°35'27.6" 97°12'22.4"
OOO circa cacccbabocdvsbessiseses) ~~ eee 679,163 27°31'30.01" = 97°03"11.05" /
82. By straight line to. --..-.---------- 2,473, 113 688,467 27°33'11.66" — 97°02'23.35"
83. By arc centered at. - -.--..--------- 2, 423, 245 710,909 27°36'59.3’" 97°11'34.8"
SS: hic J actanbadveddtbaesvasta 2, 477, 118 701,518 27°35'20.43" 97°O1'37.17”
84. By straight line to. ..-...---------- 2, 477, 226 701,748 27°35'22.70" — 97°01'35.93”
85. By straight line to.............-.-. 2, 484,830 715,453 27°37'37.53"" — 97°00'09.62”
86. By straight line to. . ...--..-.---.-- 2. 492, 830 728,654 27°39'47.30" — 96°58'38.91”"
87. By straight line to. .-.....-.------- 2, 503, 178 744,730 27°42'25.23" — 96°5641.63"
&8. By straight line to. - -.-.-.--..------ 2,511,491 757,057 27°44'26.26" 96°55'07.44"
89. By straight line to. - ----.-----.---- 2, 515, 272 762,240 27°45/17.11" 96°5424.63" |
90. By are centered at--....-.---------- 2, 471, 092 794,467 27°50'41.5"" 97°02'32.2”
DE ccicbnaaeccdbandubesecthicctacssus 2, 522, 680 776,327 27°47'35.66" 96°53'00.17"
01. By straight tine te......: -........ aor Seems tine fo... 25k n ee ss 3, 084, 317 288,890 28°35°05.20'" 95°37'15.45""
4. By straight line to.........._-- pei 3, 092, 292 293,735 28°35'50.86'" 95°35'44.46"
55. By are centered at_...........- b. 3, 063, 896 340,470 28°43'41.5”’ 95°40'48.0”
Wiiivas deans bet rd ocinaiten lier cab 3, 092, 642 293,950 28°35'52.89’’ 95°35'40.46""
6. By straight line | es VEE EE per oP 3, 110, 71 305,148 28°37'38.45’" 95°32'13.53""
3. By ave centered at. ................ 3, 082, 018 351,668 28°45'27.2" 95°37'20.9”"
_ so ib mich sasleatlc ea beso 3, 111, 027 305,312 28°37'39.99"" 95°32’10.52""
8. By str right line to. a: 316,545 28°39'25.86"" 95°28'45.39""
#. By arc centered at................. 3, 099, 968 362,901 28°47°13.2’ 95°33'55.6"
ita ceaak gai aderiadede Sateen 3, 129, 951 317,169 28°39'31.75’" 95°28'34.25"
0. By straight line to. pabebnda caneanerk 3, 152, 081 331, 678 28°41'48.68"" 95°24'20.95""
il. By are centered at..............- -- 8,122,008 377,410 28°49'30.3" 95°29'42.1"
Speak bOiin niin pati dehecuakeaaas 3, 153, 769 332, 28°41'59.57”" 95°24'01.60"
@. By straight lime to................. 3, 158, 904 336,478 28°42'34.10"" 95°23'02.71""
By straight line to. ____._. ee es. 3, 168, 664 342,866 28°43'34.32” 95°21'10.91""
. By are centered at_...............- 3. 138, 717 388,622 28°51'16.3" 95°26'31.5”
Natit bates cnn dihadnadigthtebiie 3, 172, 530 345,644 28°44'00.62” 95°20'26.53""

nyseng cee |

6
i,
South Central Zone
Course Latitude Longitude
z y
i.
165. By straight lins to. ......--- piehene 3,177,771 349,049 28°44'32.60’’ 95°19'26.45”"
166. By are centered at.._........-...-- 3, 147, 981 394,907 28°52’15.7” 95°24'45.2'
DRictitena
4
=
4
3
4
2
S
~
+
x
~
p>

8

rights of the United States in such lands, minerals and
resources.

2. As against the United States, with the exceptions
provided by $5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43
U.S.C. § 1313, the State of Texas is entitled to—

(a) All the lands, minerals and other natural re-
sources underlying the Gulf of Mexico, bounded on
the south by the international boundary with Mexico
and on the east by the western boundary of Louisiana
and an extension thereof, that are within three geo-
graphical miles from the present or future coast line
as referred to in § 2(¢) of the Submerged Lands Act,
43 U.S.C. § 1301(¢) ; and

(b) All the lands, minerals and other natural re-
sources underlying the Gulf of Mexico, bounded on the
south by the international boundary with Mexico and
on the east by the western boundary of Louisiana and

an extension thereof, less than three marine leagues
guifward from the present or future coast line as re-
ferred to in §2(¢) of the Submerged Lands Act, 43
U.S.C. §1301(¢), that are landward of the line de-
seribed in paragraph 1(b) hereof.

3. As used herein—

(a) “Geographical mile’* means a distance of 1592
meters (6076.10333 ... U.S. Survey Feet or approxi-
mately 6076.11549 International Feet) ;

(b) **Marine league’? means a distance of three
veographical miles ;

(©) Plane coordinates refer to the Texas Coordi-
nate Systems, South Zone or South Central Zone, as
indicated.

9

(d) Latitudes and longitudes refer to the North
American 1927 Datum.

(e) All distances referred to herein are expressed
it grid scale, Texas Plane Coordinate Systems.

4. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such
‘urther proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such
vrits as may from time to time be deemed necessary
ir advisable to give proper force and effect to this de-
ree, or to the decree of December 12, 1960, herein,

r to effectuate the rights of the parties in the
remises,

3
2
&

kee ie

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OcToBER TERM, 1968

No. 9, ORIGINAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF
Vv.

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED DECREE

The immediate occasion for the present phase of
this case was a disagreement between the United
States and Texas over the propriety of using coastal
jetties erected after 1845 as part of the baseline from
which to measure the three-league width of Texas’
historic maritime belt for purposes of the Submerged
Lands Act. However, resolution of that narrow issue
necessarily involved consideration of broader prin-
ciples, and, in rejecting use of the jetties, the Court
held generally that historie boundaries, for purposes
of the Act, are immovable lines, fixed at their loca-
tion on the date of statehood.’ In considering formula-
tion of a proposed decree to effectuate that holding,

* By analogy, boundaries approved by Congress after statehood
presumably are fixed at the location where they first existed
with congressional approval. This will apply to Florida’s his-

(10)

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

ll

the parties have agreed that it will be desirable to
describe the actual line forming the historie maritime
boundary of Texas. The Court having allowed addi-
tional time needed for completion of the cartographic
work involved, the parties have now agreed on the
location of Texas’ 1845/1849 gulfward houndary for
domestic purposes, and have described it in the Stipu-
lation which is filed herewith.

That is not the end of the matter, however. So that
iffshore leasing may go forward with minimum delay,
seth parties would prefer a decree that not only iden-
tified the 1845/1849 boundary but went on to fix
Texas’ resultant rights under the Submerged Lands
Act. And, at this point, the parties are in disagree-
ment on one principle which prevents the joint sub-
mission of a proposed decree. Texas maintains—sub-

toric boundary, United States vy. Florida. 363 U.S. 121. and to
he portion of Texas’ boundary opposite Sabine Pass, which
was added with congressional approval in 1849, See infra, pp.
16-18. This technical distinction between the two parts of Texas”
noundary has no practical consequences, and for convenience
we refer herein to the combined line as the “historic” or *1845/
1849” boundary.

* We characterize the agreed line as Texas’ historic boundary
‘for domestic purposes” because the United States makes no
-ontention in this case as to its maritime boundary, as against
ther nations, and the original opinion in this case specifically
refrained from establishing an international boundary for the
United States. United States v. Louisiana, 363 US. 1, 35. The
rights of the United States or of any States in submerged lands
seaward of the national maritime boundary under the Submerged
Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C. 1301-1315, the Outer Con-
inental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U.S.C. 1233 -1343, or
he Convention on the Continental Shelf. 15 US.T. (Pt. 1) 471,
ire of a special character and may be described as extraterritorial
nh nature.

4
a
a

:

%

Pete arn aheornitn ss

j2

ject to reservations not presently in dispute ‘—that
the 1845/1849 line permanently fixes the extent of the
State’s rights under the Submerged Lands Act. The
United States, on the other hand, believes that the Ac
grants Texas only so much of the submerged land
landward of its historic maritime boundary as js
within three leagues of the present or future coast
line. This difference has practical importance because
substantial erosion has occurred along the coast of
Texas during the intervening century.

The point is a narrow one, and we have concluded
that it may be brought before the Court most con-
veniently by submission at this time of two proposed
decrees, each embodying the proponent’s view of the
disputed principle. Apart from this one difference,
the two proposed decrees are identical, and it js
agreed that each decree is proper and should be
entered if the proponent’s view on the disputed point
is sustained. The United States does not request, but
does not oppose, the hearing of oral argument on the
proposed decrees.

The present memorandum is intended (1) to ex-
plain briefly, for the Court’s information, how the

*As in all such decrees that have been entered under the
Submerged Lands Act, the problem of identifying particular
areas reserved to the United States by section 5 of the Act, 4
U.S.C. 1313, must be preserved for determination of the facts
involved in each instance. Cf. United States v. Louisiana, 364
U.S. 502, 503; Jbid., 382 U.S. 288, 289; United States v. Cali-
fornia, 382 U.S. 448, 452.

Likewise, the location of Texas’ southern offshore boundary
with Mexico and the location of its eastern offshore boundary
with Louisiana cannot be effectively determined between the

present parties, but must await appropriate proceedings in the
future.

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

13

agreed historic boundary was arrived at and what it
represents, and (2) to support the United States’
view on the single remaining legal issue, as embodied
in the decree herein proposed.

I. THE HISTORIC MARITIME BOUNDARY OF TEXAS

Texas’ gulfward boundary, as declared by the Act
of December 19, 1836, of the Republic of Texas, was
a line “three leagues from land.’’ 1 Laws Rep. Tex.
133. Under the Court’s opinion of December 4, 1967,
herein, that boundary as it was located on December
29, 1845, when Texas became a State, is the State
boundary ‘tas it existed at the time such State be-
came a member of the Union” within the meaning of
section 2(b) of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C.
1301(b). Lacking exactly contemporary surveys fixing
the boundary, the parties have agreed on a recon-
struction of it by the following means:

First, it was agreed that the earliest federal sur-
veys, made at various times from 1854 to 1886, should
be accepted as representing conditions in 1845, in the
absence of contrary evidence. No contrary evidence
has been adduced by either party.

Second, although Texas’ 1836 statute referred only
to “land,’’ without distinguishing the high- or low-
water line or making specific reference to the closing
lines of inland waters, it was agreed to construe it
as referring to the mean low-water line and as inelud-
ing closing lines across entrances to inland waters.

Third, since the early surveys showed only the high-
water line, it was necessary to reconstruct a hypo-
thetical low-water line. This was done by assuming a

14

uniform bottom slope between the high-water line
and the closest inshore depth sounding shown on the
earliest hydrographic chart of each area, and by draw.
ing a supposed low-water line where that uniform
slope would have intersected the plane of mean low
water.

Fourth, since it is not feasible to describe or survey
an irregular curve or a line at a stated distance there.
from, the :cw-water line was reduced to a meander
line of straight segments. This was done by selecting
points on the low-water line such that straight lines
between them did not depart more than 50 feet from
the low-water line (with minor exceptions), except
where they constitute appropriate lines marking the
outer limits of inland waters. This produced a con-
tinuous line of 223 straight segments, connecting 224
points, extending from the Mexican boundary to the
Louisiana boundary. In addition, one point (No. 176)
on the gulfward side of an island, outside the entrance
to Galveston Bay was separately identified but was
found to have no effect on the 3-league limit, and so
to be irrelevant to the present purpose.

Fifth, the early maps were correlated with the
North, American 1927 datum now in use, and the
meander line was transferred to modern maps, from
which geographical coordinates were read. This is done
by an optical device which gives a mechanical read-
ing of the coordinates as the crosshairs of an optical

15

scanner are centered on a desired point. Equivalent
plane coordinates were then ascertained by computer.’

Sixth, we computed the position of a line parallel
to, and three leagues seaward from, the meander line.
This consists of straight segments parallel to the seg-
ments of the meander line, which meet opposite con-
cave angles of the meander line or are connected by
ares with three-league radii around convex angles
of the meander line, thereby maintaining a uniform
listance of three leagues from the nearest point on
the meander line.’ This line is described by inter-
section points of its component lines and arcs and by
he centers of the ares, the radii being uniformly three
eagues.

All of these measurements and computations have
een made on the grid scale of the Texas plane co-
mdinate systems, as provided by the proposed decrees.
[his permits the use of plane rather than spherical

*Both parties use the plane coordinate systems for offshore
urveying and leasing, and those systems provide the most con-
enient means of description for such purposes. Latitudes and
ongitudes are more readily usable by navigators and by many
thers not directly invelved in offshore leasing or surveying.
Ve identify points by both means, to make the decree useful
nd meaningful to as many people as possible.

*This is the so-called envelope line or ares-of-circles method
y which maritime boundaries are drawn under Article 6 of
1e Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,

5 U.S.T. (Pt. 2) 1609. See 1 Shalowitz, Shore and Sea Bound-
ries (1962) 170-172,

16 =
geometry and trigonometry. The parties join in re.
questing this procedure, believing that its much greater
convenience far outweighs the slight inaccuracy (which
ranges from 0 to about 1/10,000).°
Because the exact locations of ‘Texas’ offshor
boundaries with Mexico and Louisiana have not yet
been determined, we have described a line that presum-
ably extends beyond both those boundaries, with a pro-
vision limiting the effect of the decree to that portion
of the line lying within those boundaries. This is the
same approach that both parties have followed in the
pending motions for determination of Louisiana’s off-
shore boundary in this case. |
One additional complication requires comment.
When Texas entered the Union on December 29, 1845,
its eastern boundary was at the western bank of the
Sabine River.’ By the Act of July 5, 1848, 9 Stat. 245,
Congress consented—
that the legislature of the State of Texas may
extend her eastern boundary so as to include
within her limits one half of Sabine Pass, one
half of Sabine Lake, also one half of Sabine
River, from its mouth as far north as the
thirty-second degree of north latitude.

By Act of November 24, 1849, Laws, Third Tex.

Legis., ¢. 2, p. 4, the Texas Legislature provided—

®See Mitchell and Simmons, 7he State Coordinate Systems
(Dept. of Commerce Spec. Pub. No. 235, 1957), 2-3.

7Convention of April 25, 1838, between the United States
and the Republic of Texas, 8 Stat. 511, reaffirming the bound-
ary established by Article 2 of the Treaty of January 12,
1828, between the United States and Mexico, 8 Stat. 372, 374;
Act of December 19, 1836, of the Republic of Texas, 1 Laws
Rep. Tex. 133.

Be sacs ily at eae

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

17

That in aecordence with the consent of the
Congress of the United States, given by an act
of said Congress, approved J uly 5th, 1848, the
Eastern Boundary of the State of Texas be, and
the same is hereby extended so as to include
within the limits of the State of Texas, the west-
ern half of Sabine Pass, Sabine Lake and
Sabine River from its mouth as far north as
the thirty-second degree of north latitude * * *,

Neither the federal nor the Texan legislation made
any reference to a corresponding eastward extension
of Texas’ maritime belt opposite the western half of
Sabine Pass. However, the Court has held in this case
that congressional silence in 1845 as to Texas’ mari-
time claim should be construed as an adoption of it;
and we see no less reason to suppose that the silence
of Congress in 1848 and the Texas legislature in 1849
is to be understood as establishing a similar maritime
boundary opposite the newly added Texan territory.
Accordingly, we accept Texas’ three-league boundary
opposite the western half of Sabine Pass, not as a
boundary as it existed when the State became a mem-
ber of the Union in 1845, but rather as one approved
by Congress before passage of the Submerged Lands
Act, and as such equally entitled to recognition under
section 2(b) of that Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301. This distinc-
tion is made only as a matter of technical accuracy.
It has no practical consequences, as no private rights
appear to have accrued in this limited offshore area
between 1845 and 1849, and our present cartographic
materials do not disclose any physical changes in the
coast in that interval.

18

While our treatment of this extension of Texas’
eastern boundary is premised on the assumption,
arguendo, that it was valid and effective according to
its terms, we are not to be understood as seeking to
foreclose that question or to have it decided now. It
is our understanding that Louisiana claims the entire
bed of the Sabine River, Lake, and Pass, and denies
the validity of Texas’ claim to the west half.* Our
purpose here is to identify the line to be recognized
as Texas’ historic offshore boundary, including its
putative 1849 extension, while reserving the question
of the effectiveness of that extension for a subsequent
proceeding in which Louisiana may participate.

Il. THE THREE-LEAGUE LIMITATION OF THE SUBMERGED
LANDS ACT

The single remaining point of difference between
the United States and Texas may be simply stated.
Section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act, defining the
terms ‘‘lands beneath navigable waters” and ‘‘bound-
aries’’ as used in the grant made by section 3, imposes
the restriction that “in no event shall the term
‘boundaries’ or the term ‘lands beneath navigable
waters’ be interpreted as extending from the coast
line more than three geographical miles into the
Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, or more than
three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico.” 67

* The Louisiana Enabling Act of February 20, 1811, 2 Stat.
641, and Louisiana Admission Act of April 8, 1812, 2 Stat. 701,
described the boundary of that State as “beginning at the mouth
of the river Sabine, thence by a line to be drawn along the

middle of the said river, including all islands to the thirty-
second degree of latitude * * *.”

_

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

19

Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C. 1301. Texas acknowledges the
limitation but reads it as measuring from the coast
line as it existed on the dates as of which the his-
toric boundary was recognized by the Act: that is,
December 29, 1845, or November 24, 1849. The United
States reads the limitation as measuring from the
coast line as it exists currently or at any time in the
future.

Under Texas’ view, the three-league limitation was
complied with, once and for all, by the fact that its
boundary was only three leagues from the coast when
Texas entered the Union and when it made its Sabine
extension. Under the United States’ view, the three-
league maximum limit is always to be measured from
the contemporary coast, and so constitutes an ambula-
tory maximum limit that may sometimes restrict the
otherwise unrestricted grant of the lands within Texas’
immovable historic boundary. The practical applica-
tion of these differing approaches to a hypothetical
example is illustrated on the following two pages.”

* The three-mile minimum grant (measured from the modern
coast) has no present application in the case of Texas. But,
as the hypothetical example shows, that principle will’ become
important, under our view, if accretion or artificial construc-

tion should at some future time extend the coastline more than
six miles beyond its 1845/1849 position.

20
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE

Illustrating relevant elements in relation to
areas of accretion, erosion, and artificial
construction along an originally straight
coastline

mea

A. Historic coastline

B. Modern coastline, showing accretion (F),
erosion (G), and artificial construction

(H)

C. Fixed historic boundary, three leagues
¥ gulfward from historic coastline

D. Three-mile limit, measured from modern,
ambulatory coastline

E, Three-league limit, measured from modern,
ambulatory coastline

F. Area of accretion
G. Area of erosion
H. Modern artificial construction

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

21

APPLICATION OF TEXAS AND UNITED STATES VIEWS
TO HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE

J
}
‘

BOUNDARY LIN® OF SUBMERGED LANDS ACT GRANT
ACCORDING TO TEXAS
(Same as historic boundary, without regard
to distance from modern coastline)

f ; g
A ia eae 3

BOUNDARY LINE OF SUBMERGED LANDS ACT GRANT
ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES
(Includes areas within 3 miles of modern coast-
line, even if beyond historic boundary, but no
areas more than 3 leagues from modern coastline,
even if within historic boundary)

22

This question was not argued by the parties or
decided by the Court. Indeed, it does not affect the
immediate controversy over the maritime boundary
of Texas opposite Galveston Harbor and Sabine Pass,
because, at those points, the modern coastline~
extended by artificial jetties—is gulfward of the his-
torie baseline and the three league limitation has no
bite. The issue arises as a result of the conclusion
that the historic boundary referred to in the Sub-
merged Lands Act is a fixed line.’” As we read the
Court’s opinion, it (1) fixes the historic boundary
as an immovable line, (2) recognizes that the statu-
tory grant of land within that boundary is subject
to a maximum limitation of three leagues from the
coast,” and (3) expresses no view as to the proper
interpretation of that limitation. In this situation, we
submit the question is now open, and should be re-

1° Had the Court accepted Texas’ view that its historic three-
league limit should be measured from the modern coast, or the
United States’ alternative suggestion that it could be understood
to be ambulatory so far as natural coastal changes were con-
cerned, the baseline for the three-league limit would always have
been identical to the baseline for the three-league boundary, or
farther seaward (since significant artificial changes are almost
invariably extensions rather than excavations of the coast).
Thus the limit would have no practical importance where, as in
Texas’ case, the original distance did not exceed three leagues.
However, since the Court has held that the historic boundary
is immovable, and since comparison of early maps with modem
maps has disclosed erosion along part of the Texas coast, it is
now important to know whether the limitation of “three leagues
from the coast” means the modern or the historic coast.
"1 Thus, the Court said of the grant conditioned upon a State's
prior history (United States v. Louisiana, 389 U.S. 155, 156):
It allows those States bordering on the Gulf of Mexico,
which at the time of their entry into the Union had a sea-

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

23

solved in order to permit the entry of a meaningful
decree.

In our view, the statutory limitation of three leagues
from the coast line can only be read as meaning three
leagues from the modern, ambulatory coast line. Sec-
tion 3 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1311,
granted the “lands beneath navigable waters within
the boundaries of the respective States.’’ Section 2,
43 U.S.C. 1301, so far as relevant here, defined those
terms as follows:

(a) The term “lands beneath navigable wa-
ters’? means—

* * * * *

(2) all lands permanently or periodically
covered by tidal waters up to but not above
the line of mean high tide and seaward to
a line three geographical miles distant from

ward boundary beyond three miles, to claim this historical
boundary “as it existed at the time such State became a
member of the Union,” but with the maximum limitation
that no State may claim more than “three marine leagues”
(approximately nine miles).

Again, the Court said (389 U.S, at 159) :

In effect what Congress has done is to take into con-
sideration the special historical situations of a few Gulf
States and provide that where they can prove ownership
to submerged lands in excess of three miles at the time they
entered the Union, these historical lands will be granted to
them up to a limitation of three marine leagues. * * *

The further statement (389 U.S. at 160) that “Texas has
imply been given that amount of submerged land it owned
vhen it entered the Union” must be read, in context, as no more
han an interpretation of the statutory reference to historic
voundaries “as [they] existed at the time such State became a
aember of the Union,” not as a repudiation of the three-league
imitation which the Court had expressly recognized earlier in
he same paragraph.

q
|

:

ea

notte

24

the coast line of each such State and to
the boundary line of each such State where
in any case such boundary as it existed at
the time such State became a member of
the Union, or as heretofore approved by
Congress, extends seaward (or into the
Gulf of Mexico) beyond three geographical
miles, * * *

* ad * * *

(b) The term ‘‘boundaries”’ includes the sea-
ward boundaries of a State or its boundaries
in the Gulf of Mexico or any of the Great
Lakes as they existed at the time such State
became a member of the Union, or as hereto-
fore approved by the Congress, or as extended
or confirmed pursuant to section 4 hereof but
in no event shall the term ‘‘boundaries”’ or the
term ‘‘lands beneath navigable waters’” be in-
terpreted as extending from the coast line more
than three geographical miles into the Atlantic
Ocean or the Pacifie Ocean, or more than three
marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico ;”

(c) The term ‘‘coast line’’ means the line of
ordinary low water along that portion of the
coast which is in direct contact with the open
sea and the line marking the seaward limit of
inland waters;

* * * * *

The discrepancy between section 2(a)(2), which contem-
plates historic boundaries of any extent and in any sea, and
the final clause of section 2(b), which precludes recognition
of any such boundaries except within three leagues of the coast
of the Gulf of Mexico, arises from the fact that the lattr
restriction was added to the measure by a floor amendment,
without corresponding revision of section 2{a)(2). 99 Cong.
tec. 41144116.

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

tice

25

Section 4 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C.
1312, provided:

Sec. 4. Seaward Boundaries.—The seaward
boundary of each original coastal State is
hereby approved and confirmed as a line three
geographical miles distant from its coast line
or, in the case of the Great Lakes, to the inter-
national boundary. Any State admitted sub-
sequent to the formation of the Union which
has not already done so may extend its sea-
ward boundaries to a line three geographical
miles distant from its coast line, or to the in
national boundaries of the United States in
the Great Lakes or any other body of water
traversed by such boundaries. Any claim here-
tofore or hereafter asserted either by constitu-
tional provision, statute, or otherwise, indicating
the intent of a State so to extend its bound-
aries is hereby approved and confirmed, with-
out prejudice to its claim, if any it has, that
its houndaries extend beyond that line. N othing
in this section is to be construed as questioning
or in any manner prejudicing the existence of
any State’s seaward boundary beyond three
geographical miles if it was so provided by its
constitution or laws prior to or at the time
such State became a member of the Union, or
if it has been heretofore approved by Congress.

er-

The combined effect of these provisions is that
each State was given the submerged lands within its
claimed boundary, to the extent of three miles from
the coast line, and that where a State showed that its
boundary as it existed upon statehood or as approved
by Congress extended into the Gulf of Mexieo more

26

than three miles from the coast line, it was given the
submerged lands within such boundary, to a maxi-
mum extent of three leagues from the coast. It seems
evident that these references to the “coast line”’ as
the baseline of the three-mile minimum and of the
three-league maximum are in pari materta and can
only be understood as referring to the same coast
line—that is, the modern, ambulatory coast line, as
defined in section 2(c) and construed in United States
v. California, 381 U.S. 1388.

In the California case the Court said of its adop-
tion of the principles of the Convention on the Ter-
ritorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in construing
the Submerged Lands Act, “This establishes a single
coastline for both the administration of the Sub-
merged Lands Act and the conduct of our future
international relations * * *.” 381 U.S. at 165, While
that was said with reference to measurement of the

three-mile minimum limit of the grant, we find no

4
4

reason to suppose it any less applicable to measure-
ment of the three-league meximum limitation. Both
measurements are provided for in a single section and
with reference to a single coast line. See. 2, 48 U.S.C.
1301. As held in the California case, that is the mod-
ern, ambulatory coast line.

We cannot state the point more clearly than it was

AAMC NER fa coe SO Ree LY as

ee fig

stated earlier in these proceedings in the Reply Brief
of Texas in Opposition to Motion for Injunction and
Supplemental Decree, at page 12: “The Act plainly
applies the same term as the baseline from which to
measure the grant (whether three miles or three
leagues) to all coastal States.’ Texas failed in its con-

& —

—

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

27

tention there, not because “coast line’’ as used in the
Act has two different meanings, but rather because
of the fact that whereas the three-mile measurement
is a minimum (whenever claimed by a State), the
three-league measurement is not a grant, but is rather
a maximum limitation on the historic grant. As the
Court pointed out, in the operative historic grant itself
‘‘the term ‘coast line’ is omitted and in its place the
word ‘boundary’ is used * * *.*? 389 U.S. 155 at 160.
The term “coast line’ in that connection is used only
in imposing the maximum limitation that “in no event
shall the term ‘boundaries’ or the term ‘lands beneath
navigable waters’ be interpreted as extending from
the coast line more than three geographical miles into
the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, or more than
three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico.’ Sec-
tion 2(b), supra.

In accordance with our interpretation, our proposed
decree would provide that, with the exceptions pro-
vided by section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43
U.S.C. 1313, Texas is cutitled to all the submerged
lands less than three geographical miles from the pres-
ent, ambulatory coast line, and the United States is
entitled to all the submerged lands more than three
leagues from the same coast line. Between those two
limits, the lands inside Texas’ historic boundary be-
long to Texas, and those outside it belong to the
United States.

While we provide a specific description of the im-
novable 1845/1849 line, we describe the limit three
eagues from the modern coast line only in general
rms. That is because there is not now available a

te

fie

petition niet BAR

28

complete survey of the modern low-water line ade.
quate for the development of a description of the
three-league limit comparable to the description of the
1845/1849 boundary. Since many months will be re.
quired for the completion of such a survey,” it seems
preferable to await a ruling on the relevance of the
line before undertaking that extensive work. More.
over, because the coast of Texas has none of the com-
plexities of the Louisiana coast, we believe there will
be no real basis for disagreement between the parties
in applying the principles announced by the Court in
United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, should the
decree proposed by the United States be entered by
the Court. Should a dispute subsequently arise over
the correctness of a survey or the application of a
legal principle, presumably a further suppleniental
decree could be sought, under the provision for reten-
tion of jurisdiction.

* This work is done by photogrammetry—that is, by aerial
photographs taken when the sea is exactly at the level of mean
low tide. These are then correlated with maps by use of con-
trol puints, and the water line shown on the photographs is
transferred to the maps. There are only limited times when
the tide reaches the proper stage while there is suitable day-
light for such photography and there is no offshore or on-
shore wind to dislocate the water line. When the necessary con-
ditions do concur, the tide stage lasts only a few minutes. Thus,
photography of an extensive coast. such as that of Texas may
be a protracted operation. Subsequent cartography require
skilled and painstaking work that cannot be done hurriedly or
by mass production methods.

ee

COPY BOUND CLOSE IN CENTER

29
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that a
decree should be entered in the form herein proposed.
Respectfully.
Erwin N. Griswo1n,
Solicitor General.
CLYDE O. Martz,
Assistant Attorney General.
Lovis F, Ciarporne,
Assistant to the Solicitor General.
Rocer P. Margulis,
GEORGE S. Swarru,

Attorneys.
JuLy 1968.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1968

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1630%3A047. Public record. Not legal advice.