In this case, in which a decree is sought defining the seaward
boundary of the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf in the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico in which Florida has rights
to natural resources, Florida's exceptions to the recommendations
of the Special Master are overruled, but the exceptions of the
United States raise contentions not previously presented to the
Special Master, and are therefore referred to him for further
proceedings.
Page 420 U. S. 532
PER CURIAM.
Before the Court for consideration are the exceptions of the
State of Florida and of the United States to the Report of the
Special Master filed February 19, 1974. Oral argument has been
had.
The case consolidates two proceedings. In the first, the United
States seeks a decree defining the seaward boundary of the
submerged lands of the Continental Shelf in the Atlantic Ocean in
which Florida has rights to the natural resources. 395 U.S. 955
(1969). In the second, the State of Florida and the United States
seek a decree defining more specifically than does the decree
entered in
United States v. Louisiana, 364 U.
S. 502 (1960), the seaward boundary of the submerged
lands of the Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico in which
Florida has rights to the natural resources. 403 U.S. 949
(1971).
In its exceptions to the Report, the State of Florida maintains
that, in his recommendations the Special Master should have
recognized that the said boundaries extend to the boundaries
defined in the State's 1868 Constitution, rather than to the limits
specified in the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, § 2(b), 67 Stat. 29,
43 U.S.C. § 1301(b); that the Special Master should have recognized
that the Florida Keys and the Straits of Florida southwest of
longitude 25�40' N. are part of the Gulf of Mexico, rather than of
the Atlantic Ocean; that the Special Master erred in construing the
1868 Constitution of the State as to its Atlantic Ocean
boundary
Page 420 U. S. 533
and as to its boundary between the Dry Tortugas Islands and Cape
Romano; and that the Special Master erred in failing to recognize
"Florida Bay" as a historic bay, and thus as inland waters of the
State.
Having considered each of these exceptions, we conclude that
they are correctly answered in the Report of the Special Master.
The exceptions of the State of Florida are therefore overruled.
In its exceptions to the Report, the United States maintains
that the Special Master erred in recommending the recognition of a
portion of Florida Bay as a "juridical" bay, and in recommending
the drawing of "closing lines" around three groups of islands that
make up the Florida Keys. It appears that these recommendations of
the Special Master were made without benefit of the contentions now
advanced by the United States and the opposing contentions now
presented by the State of Florida. The exceptions of the United
States are therefore referred to the Special Master for his prompt
consideration. He is authorized to conduct any supplemental
proceedings he may find useful with respect to the exceptions of
the United States, and is requested to file a supplemental report
restricted to the issues raised in those exceptions.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.