Opposition Brief — Utah Division of State Lands v. United States

Supreme Court, U.S.

FilLED

(s) | JUL 181986

No. 85-1772 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1986

STATE OF UTAH, by and through its

DIVISION OF STATE LANDS, PETITIONER

Vv.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION

CHARLES FRIED

Solicitor General

F. HENRY HABICHT II

Assistant Attorney General

DmK D. SNEL

STEVEN A. HERMAN

LAWRENCE W. PUCKETT

Attorneys

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 633-2217

\e

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether title to the bed of Utah Lake, a navigable

body of water, passed to the State of Utah upon its

admission to the Union in 1896.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LEE ELSES i

EL SS TN 1

ee ssetiopaunathbgeverasnneces 2

a setempinntiinsesoveves 6

a sestotacttnrrence 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S.

a cecumensommutecess 7, 8,10

Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 ..........00.000.... 3

Borax Consol. vy. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10 _............ 7

California vy. United States, 438 U.S. 645 _............ 8,11, 12

Chemehuevi Tribe v. FPC, 420 U.S. 395 .................. 13

Choctaw Nation y. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620 _.......... 7,10

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen,

665 F.2d 951, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 977 ............. x

CFTC Vv. Schor, No. 85-621 (July 7, 1986) ............ 12

Ide Vv. United States, 263 U.S. 497 00000000. 8,11

Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 83-

Cee ecciecoconcons 12-13

Lorillard v. Pons, 484 U.S. 575 .....................--.-....--- 13

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Sazbe v. Bustos, 419 U.S. 65 .............-0.. 13

Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 ..............0..------..--- 5, 6, 7

Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands

Nn cccuseueueces 7

United States v. Alaska, 423 F.2d 764, cert. denied,

ESET 8,11

United States v. City of Anchorage, 437 F.2d 1081.. 8,11

United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49... 5, 7,10

United States v. Mottaz, No. 85-546 (June 11,

ee ccusvovstoccovsesovervcees 3

(IIT)

IV

Statutes : Page

Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, § 17, 26 Stat. 1101, 43

8 I SR en ee Een SS ens 12

Act of Feb. 26, 1897, ch. 335, 29 Stat. 599, 43 U.S.C.

I a a a a 12

Sundry Appropriations:

Act of Oct. 2, 1888, ch. 1069, 25 Stat. 505,

NIT sccsscsnsiicanitanminnnitentibiasimanisansl 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,9, 10

Act of Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 837, 26 Stat. 371,

SE oe sdabbnmmnnnanansenaimmecsanstill 4,5,11, 12

Quiet Title Act:

Do ssleecsnasennenshianiasdannnee 3

I I einibisaeinanidennnnntanininntinns 3

Submerged Lands Act:

PR BF a ae 2

I, I . ..scsissenesadenssiunstannaiensenmmendsontnmnseanine 3

Miscellaneous:

P. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development

CII eciccietesicncsesnncincnocicceienanaceassestncsassnteianaesiatieinestae 8

Geological Survey:

1888-1889 Tenth Ann. Rep. ...................--.---------- 4,11

1889-1890 Eleventh Ann. Rep. ......................---- 4,11

1890-1891 Twelfth Ann. Rep. ......................-----. 4,11

Reservation of Lands for Irrigation Purposes, 19

Op. Att’y Gen. 564 (1890) _....-....-----.-.---1--eeeeneeenees 11

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1986

No. 85-1772

STATE OF UTAH, by and through its

DIVISION OF STATE LANDS, PETITIONER

Vv.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1la-

27a) is reported at 780 F.2d 1515. The opinion of

the district court (Pet. App. 28a-41a) is reported

624 F. Supp. 622. ” Va

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the court of appeals was entered

on December 26, 1985. On March 12, 1986, Justice

White extended the time within which to file a peti-

(1)

2

tion for a writ of certiorari to and including April

25, 1986, and the petition was filed on April 24, 1986.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. 1254(1).

STATEMENT

This case concerns the ownership of the bed of

Utah Lake. The parties have stipulated that the

Lake was navigable on January 4, 1896, the date on

which petitioner, the State of Utah, was admitted to

the Union (Pet. App. 8a n.4). Petitioner claims that

by operation of the equal footing doctrine, it has

owned the bed of Utah Lake since that date. Both

courts below rejected this claim, holding that the

United States previously had selected the bed of the

Lake for purposes of a federal reservoir, reserved

pursuant to the Sundry Appropriations Act of Oct. 2,

1888, ch. 1069, 25 Stat. 505, 526-527."

1. In late 1976, the Department of the Interior

issued federal oil and gas leases on the bed of Utah

Lake (Pet. App. 2a). Petitioner protested, contend-

ing that the leasing encroached upon its property

interests. After unsuccessful negotiations to resolve

the dispute, petitioner commenced this suit in May

1979 in the United States District Court for the Dis-

trict of Utah against the United States, the Secre-

tary of the Interior, the Director of the Bureau of

Land Management, and the Director of the Bureau’s

Utah State Office. Petitioner sought a declaratory

judgment that it, rather than the United States, had

1 Petitioner also contended in the courts below that it ob-

tained title to the bed of Utah Lake under the Submerged

Lands Act of 1953, 48 U.S.C. 13801-1343. That additional claim

also was rejected by the courts below (Pet. App. 24a-26a, 40a-

41a), and petitioner does not renew it here.

title to the lake bed and sought an injunction against

interference by respondents with petitioner’s alleged

ownership and right to manage the lake bed (id. at

3a, 28a-29a).? The district court granted summary

judgment for respondents, declaring that title to the

lake bed is in the United States. On petitidner’s ap-

peal, the court of appeals affirmed on grounds virtually

identical to those relied upon by the district court.

The question of title resolved by the courts below

turns on the particular consequences of actions per-

taining to Utah Lake that were taken by federal

officials pursuant to the Sundry Appropriations Act

of Oct. 2, 1888, ch. 1069, 25 Stat. 505, 526-527. That

Act authorized the United States Geological Survey

to select “sites for reservoirs and other hydraulic

works necessary for the storage and utilization of

water for irrigation and the prevention of floods and

overflows” (25 Stat. 526). The Act further provided

that “all the lands which may hereafter be desig-

nated or selected * * * for sites for reservoirs * * *

are from this time henceforth hereby reserved from

sale as the property of the United States, and shall

not be subject after the passage of this act, to entry,

settlement or occupation until further provided by

law” (25 Stat. 527 (emphasis added) ). Pursuant to

this authority, both Utah Lake and the land sur-

rounding it were selected as a reservoir site and for-

mally reserved as property of the United States.

? The district court held that it had jurisdiction over the

suit under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C.

1346(f) and 2409a (Pet. App. 3la-32a, 36a). However, the

court of appeals, relying on Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S.

273 (1983), held that the Quiet Title Act was the exclusive

basis of jurisdiction (Pet. App. 4a n.2). See also United

States v. Mottaz, No. 85-546 (June 11, 1986).

A

Thus, in a report dated April 6, 1889, John Wesley

Powell, then Director of the Geological Survey, in-

formed the Secretary of the Interior that “the site of

Utah Lake in the Territory of Utah is hereby selected

as a reservoir site, together with all lands situated

within two statute miles of the border of said lake at

high water” (Pet. App. 10a). Both courts below held

on the basis of this and other documents that the se-

jection of Utah Lake included the bed of Utah Lake,

thereby reserving the bed as property of the United

States under the 1888 Act (Pet. App. 13a, 37a-38a).°

Thereafter, in the Sundry Appropriations Act of

Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 837, 26 Stat. 371, 391, Congress,

on a prospective basis, repealed the relevant provi-

sions of the 1888 Act. But Congress expressly did not

3 The Geological Survey’s selection of the bed of the Lake is

confirmed by the Survey’s official reports. The Tenth Annual

Report (1888-1889) stated that Utah Lake had been examined

“with reference to its capacity for a reservoir site” and that

the Survey had determined “the specifications for its with-

drawal as such under the law, so far as the lands covered or

overflowed by it or the lands bordering upon it were still public

lands’”” (Pet. App. lla (emphasis added)). The Survey’s

Eleventh Annual Report (1889-1890) stated that “a careful

survey was made of Utah Lake * * *. This land being, there-

fore, the natural flood ground of the lake should be reserved

up to the high-water line. Accordingly, the segregation * * *

was made to include not only the bed but the lowlands up to

mean high water” (Pet. App. lla-12a (emphasis added) ).

The Survey’s Twelfth Annual Report (1890-1891) also re-

ferred to Utah Lake, stating that “the segregation of the land

around and under the lake was made to a contour line which

should be 5 feet above the low-water mark of 1879” (Pet.

App. 18a (emphasis added)). The contemporaneous under-

standing therefore was that the Director of the Geological

Survey intended in 1889 to select, for purposes of the 1888

Act, the lands submerged by the waters of Utah Lake.

5

rescind the reserved status of any land selections,

such as that at issue here, that already had been

made. An exception to the 1890 Act stated “that

reservoir sites heretofore located or selected shall re-

main segregated and reserved from entry or settle-

ment as provided by [the 1888 Act], until otherwise

provided by law” (26 Stat. 391).

2. Both courts below held that the 1888 Act au-

thorized the Geological Survey to select submerged

lands, such as those beneath Utah Lake, and that the

selection in this case was sufficient to prevent title to

the lake bed from passing to petitioner upon its ad-

mission to the Union (Pet. App. 13a-15a, 21a-24a,

38a-40a). The district court held that title to the

lake bed did not pass to Utah under the equal footing

doctrine because “[t]he withdrawal of Utah Lake

was made ‘after acquiring the territory and before

the creation of the state’ for the carrying out of ‘pub-

lic purposes appropriate to the objects for which the

territory was held’” (id. at 39a-40a, quoting United

States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54-55

(1926) ). The court specifically found that those “ap-

propriate” public purposes “include irrigation for the

benefit of future settlers of the arid West” (Pet. App.

40a).

The court of appeals also specifically addressed

petitioner’s claim that Utah could not be deprived of

title to the lake bed unless the prior reservation was

mandated by some “public exigency” or “public ne-

cessity” (Pet. App. 21a). The court of appeals

emphasized (id. at 22a) that the conclusion that the

reservation served an “appropriate public purpose”

was based on this Court’s own formulation in Shively

v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894), which held that Con-

gress may convey lands underlying navigable waters,

and thereby defeat the State’s title thereto, in order

6

to carry out “ ‘public purposes appropriate to the ob-

jects for which the United States hold the Territory’ ”

(Pet. App. 22a, quoting 152 U.S. at 48, as quoted in

Montana vy. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 551 (1981) ).

The court of appeals further observed, however, that

“fa]lthough the [district] court did not characterize

its holding explicitly in terms of a ‘public exigency,’

we are satisfied that the withdrawal of Utah [L]ake,

including its bed, was made for a public purpose

motivated by a public exigency, given Congress’

stated concerns [in the 1888 Act] that arid lands of

the western states be orderly and fairly irrigated,

reclaimed, and settled” (Pet. App. 23a).

ARGUMENT

The decision of the court of appeals is correct and

does not conflict with any decision of this Court or

of any court of appeals. The court of appeals’ ap-

plication of the equal footing doctrine to the particu-

lar circumstances of this case is fully consistent with

the principles recently reiterated and confirmed in

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981).

Review by this Court therefore is not warranted.

1. States admitted to the Union after the adoption

of the Constitution are deemed to be on an “equal

footing” with the original 13 states. One aspect of

this principle is that a newly admitted state in gen-

eral has the same right as the original states to lands

beneath navigable waters. Shively v. Bowlby, 152

U.S. 1, 26-28 (1894). At the same time, however,

Congress has the unquestioned power to reserve or

otherwise dispose of such submerged lands that have

not been included within a state, and thereby to de-

feat the title to such lands that otherwise would pass

to the state under the equal footing doctrine at the

7

time of its admission to the Union. Congress may do

so in order “ ‘to perform international obligations,’ ”

to facilitate commerce, or “ ‘to carry out other public

purposes appropriate to the objects for which the

United States hold the Territory.” Montana v.

United States, 450 U.S. at 551 (quoting Shively, 152

U.S. at 48). See also Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma,

397 U.S. 620, 633-634 (1970); Alaska Pacific Fish-

erties v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 87 (1918).* In

other words, although lands underlying navigable

waters are presumed to pass to the State upon ad-

mission, that presumption may be overcome where

the federal government has otherwise provided for

a disposition of the land prior to statehood, based on

“ ‘some international duty or public exigency’ ” (Mon-

tana v. United States, 450 U.S. at 552, quoting

United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55

(1926)). The court of appeals adhered to and cor-

rectly applied those principles here.

2. As an initial matter, there can be little doubt

that the selection and reservation of Utah Lake and

the surrounding lands as property of the United

States was for a “public purpose[] appropriate to

the objects for which the United States h[e]ld the

Territory” and that the United States responded to

a “public exigency” in doing so. Before the passage

of the 1888 Act, officials of the United States were

* Even after statehood, Congress may validly authorize pro-

ceedings and transactions to confirm the pre-statehood dis-

position of such submerged lands to others (Borax Consol. v.

Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 21 (1935) ; Summa Corp. v. Cali-

fornia ex rel. State Lands Comm’n, 466 U.S. 198, 205 (1984) ),

and a state that fails to present timely claims in the confirma-

tory proceedings is barred thereafter (Summa Corp., 466 U.S.

at 206-207 n.4).

8

“actively conducting investigations and collecting

data with a view to developing and formulating a

feasible plan for taking up and prosecuting” the work

of reclaiming, through irrigation, the arid lands west

of the 100th meridian. Jde v. United States, 263 U.S.

497, 502 (1924). Yet “[t]he opening of the arid lands

to homesteading raised the specter that settlers might

claim lands more suitable for reservoir sites or other

irrigation works, impeding future reclamation ef-

forts” (California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645,

659 (1978)). As petitioner concedes (Pet. 3, 13),

there was acute concern that reservoir sites would

“fall into the hands of ‘monopolistic speculators’ ”

(P. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development

641 (1968)). These concerns plainly were perceived

by Congress in the late 19th century as giving rise to

a “public exigency” requiring decisive legislative ac-

tion, and that exigency is sufficient in this case to

overcome the presumption that the land underlying a

particular navigable body of water passes to the new

stateg upon its admission to the Union. See Alaska

Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. at 87-

89; Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen,

665 F.2d 951, 961-962 & n.27 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

459 U.S. 977 (1982); United States v. City of An-

chorage, 437 F.2d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 1971);

United States v. Alaska, 423 F.2d 764, 766-767 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 967 (1970).

The court of appeals in fact reiterated and applied

the principle, recognized in Montana vy. United States,

that the presumption that lands underlying navigable

waters passed to the new state ordinarily will be

overcome only upon a demonstration that the United

States responded to “ ‘some international duty or pub-

lic exigency’” (see Pet. App. 22a (quoting 450 U.S.

9

at 552)). Thus, the court of appeals concluded

that “the withdrawal of Utah Lake, including its bed,

was made for a public purpose motivated by a public

exigency, given Congress’ stated concerns that arid

lands of the western states be orderly and fairly

irrigated, reclaimed, and settled” (Pet. App. 23a

(emphasis added) ). The court of appeals’ applica-

tion of settled principles in the particular circum-

stances of this case does not warrant review by this

Court.°

3. As explained above (see page 4 & note 3,

supra), the Geological Survey’s selection and the

reservation of Utah Lake expressly included the bed

of the Lake. By the terms of the 1888 Act, this land,

including the bed, was to remain “as the property of

the United States” (25 Stat. 526-527), and it there-

° Petitioner contends (Pet. 15-16) that the court of appeals’

resting of its decision on a finding of “a public purpose moti-

vated by a public exigency” constituted a departure from the

_ Court’s reference in Montana v. United States to a “public

exigency.” However, there is no indication that the court of

appeals either intended or effected such a departure, especially

since it used the term “public exigency” and discussed this

Court’s analysis in some detail. See Pet. App. 22a-23a. More-

over, as the Court made clear in Montana v. United States,

the existence of a “public exigency” is principally a guide to

ascertaining whether the United States intended to reserve the

land for an “appropriate public purpose,” which in turn would

justify a disposition of the property in such a manner as to

prevent it from passing to the State under the equal footing

doctrine. See 450 U.S. at 556. In this case, the question of

intent is clear without the need to rely on inferences, because

the United States expressly reserved the bed of Utah Lake for

the manifestly “appropriate public purpose” of promoting

reclamation and orderly settlement of land. See note 3, supra,

and pages 8-10, infra.

10

fore did not pass to the State. Petitioner argues (Pet.

16, 18-21), however, that the Geological Survey’s

selection was insufficient because the 1888 Act did

not itself expressly refer to lands underlying naviga-

ble waters. But Montana v. United States, upon

which petitioner principally relies, makes clear that

an express reference in the governing Act is not re-

quired. Although the Court there stated that a pre-

statehood conveyance would not be lightly inferred,

it made clear at the same time that the intent to

withhold land from passing to the State need not be

shown by a definite declaration to that effect, so long

as the intent is “ ‘otherwise made very plain’” (450

U.S. at 552 (quoting Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 55) ).

Significantly, the Court also discussed with approval

its prior decisions in Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma

and Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, both of

which held that. an intent sufficient to defeat the

State’s claim of title could be inferred from extrinsic

circumstances. See 450 U.S. at 555-556 & n.5.

Moreover, in this case the text of the 1888 Act was

broad in its coverage and definite in its consequences.

The enactment of the statute had the immediate

effect of “reserv[ing] from sale as the property of

the United States” all lands that might thereafter

be designated or selected for reservoir sites.’ The

*For this reason, petitioner errs in characterizing the

reservation of the bed of Utah Lake as an “administrative

withdrawal” by the Geological Survey in 1889 (Pet. 18-19).

The 1888 Act legislatively reserved that land as of 1888, be-

cause the text of the 1888 Act provided that lands, even though

not yet designated or selected as reservoir sites, were “hereby”

reserved as of the enactment date; later selection by the Geo-

logical Survey merely established the dimensions of the legis-

lative withdrawal. This was the contemporaneous under-

standing of the Attorney General, who observed that selection

11

1888 Act covered “all the lands” so designated or

selected and, as the court below correctly observed,

imposed “no restriction * * * on the type of lands

that could be designated or selected” (Pet. App. 15a).

Furthermore, within a year of the Act’s passage,

Congress was made aware of the Geological Survey’s

selection of Utah Lake (see id. at 10a), and the

Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Annual Reports of the

Geological Survey made clear that this selection in-

cluded the Lake’s bed. Congress did not thereafter

act to repudiate either the Survey’s legal position

that the beds of navigable bodies of water were em-

braced by the reservation accomplished by the 1888

Act or the specific selection and reservation of the

bed of Utah Lake. This omission is significant, be-

cause the “storm of indignation from the people of

of a reservoir site, subsequent to the 1888 Act, would accom-

plish “the reservation thereof dating back to the passage of

this [1888] act.” 19 Op. Att’y Gen. 564, 566 (1890) (emphasis

added).

Because the 1888 Act had the “practical effect of reserving

all the public lands in the west from settlement” (California v.

United States, 438 U.S. at 659), Congress enacted the Sundry

Appropriation Act of Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 837, 26 Stat. 371, 391,

in order to repeal prospectively the legislative reservation

made by the 1888 Act (Ide v. United States, 263 U.S. 502). In

respect to future reservoir selections, the 1890 Act made their

reservation effective as of the selection date (26 Stat. 391).

However, all prior site selections, such as the 1889 selection of

Utah Lake, were confirmed (ibid.).

At all events, contrary to petitioner’s contention (Pet. 18-

21), the mere fact that a reservation of submerged lands

comes to fruition by administrative action does not undermine

its effectiveness for purposes of the equal footing doctrine.

See, e.g., United States v. City of Anchorage, 437 F.2d at 1082;

United States v. States of Alaska, 423 F.2d 764, 765, 766-767

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 967 (1970).

12

the West” (California v. United States, 438 U.S. at

659) persuaded Congress to narrow the 1888 Act in

the 1890 Sundry Appropriations Act to provide that

site reservations would take effect only on the date

of actual selection and designation of a site, not

before. But Congress in 1890 also expressly con-

firmed, by the savings clause in the 1890 Act, the

Geological Survey’s prior selection of Utah Lake (as

well as all other site selections) under the earlier

Act. Accordingly, even if there had been some doubt

regarding the authority of the Geological Survey to

select the bed of the Lake, despite John Wesley

Powell’s contemporaneous construction of the 1888

Act to the contrary (see pages 3-4, supra), the 1890

Act eliminated any such concerns.

Finally, when Congress again passed new laws con-

cerning reservoir sites—specifically Section 17 of the

Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, 26 Stat. 1101, 43 U.S.C.

663 (which limited the size of reserved sites to land

actually necessary for reservoir construction and

maintenance) and the Act of Feb. 26, 1897, ch. 335,

29 Stat. 599, 43 U.S.C. 664 (permitting non-federal

use and occupancy of such sites on certain conditions)

—it again did not repudiate the previously confirmed

reservation of Utah Lake and its bed.’ This failure

by Congress to overturn the administrative action

when it once again revisited the subject of reservoir

site selection lends still further support to the Geo-

logical Survey’s 1889 selection of the bed of Utah

Lake and the resulting failure of the bed to pass to

Utah at statehood in 1896. CFTC v. Schor, No. 85-

621 (July 7, 1986), slip op. 11; Lindahl v. Office of

™ The background of the 1891 and 1897 Acts was discussed

by this Court in California v. United States, 438 U.S. at 659-

662.

13

Personnel Management, No. 83-5954 (Mar. 20, 1985),

slip op. 12 n.15; Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-

581 (1978) ; Chemehuevi Tribe v. FPC, 420 U.S. 395,

410 (1975) ; Saxbe v. Bustos, 419 U.S. 65, 74 (1974).

Against this background, the courts below correctly

rejected petitioner’s efforts to reopen that question.

Further review therefore is not warranted.®

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

denied.

Respectfully submitted.

CHARLES FRIED

Solicitor General

F. HENRY HABICHT II

Assistant Attorney General

DirkK D. SNEL

STEVEN A. HERMAN

LAWRENCE W. PUCKETT

Attorneys

JULY 1986

® The question of the ownership of the bed of Utah Lake also

does not at this time appear to be of significant practical

importance. Although the Bureau of Land Management issued

five exploratory oil and gas leases for the bed in 1976, we have

been informed by the Department of the Interior that these

leases were of 10-years’ duration and are about to expire and

that no drilling permits ever were issued for the production

of oil and gas from the bed of the Lake.

W oc. &. Government printine orrice; 1986 491507 20278