Louisiana's exception to the portion of the Special Master's
report that marks the boundary line between Louisiana and Texas in
the Sabine River as it enters into Sabine Lake through the "middle
pass," rather than in the geographic middle of the "west pass," is
overruled, where the Special Master's determination is consistent
with this Court's rejection of the thalweg doctrine in
Texas v.
Louisiana, 410 U. S. 702; and
Texas' exceptions to the Special Master's delimitation of the
lateral seaward boundary are overruled, where the Special Master,
after having correctly concluded that there has never been an
established offshore boundary between the States,
correctly applied the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
Contiguous Zone, Arts. 12 and 8 of which clearly require that the
median line be measured with reference to the jetties at the mouth
of the Sabine River.
PER CURIAM.
We have already decided that the relevant boundary between the
States of Texas and Louisiana is the geographic
Page 426 U. S. 466
middle of Sabine Pass, Sabine Lake, and Sabine River from the
mouth of the Sabine in the Gulf of Mexico to the thirty-second
degree of north latitude.
410 U. S. 410 U.S.
702 (1973). We have also held that all islands in the east half of
the Sabine River when Louisiana was admitted as a State in 1812, or
thereafter formed, belong to Louisiana. Delimitation of the
boundary and decision as to ownership of the islands in the west
half of the Sabine were deferred pending further proceedings before
the Special Master in which the United States was invited to
participate.
Id. at
410 U. S.
712-714.
The litigation subsequently was enlarged upon the motion of
Louisiana to include a determination of the lateral seaward
boundary between Texas and Louisiana, and Texas and the United
States extending into the Gulf of Mexico. 414 U.S. 904 (1973).
[
Footnote 1] Pleadings relating
to the lateral boundary were filed by the States and by the United
States. The United States also claimed title to six of the islands
in the western half of the Sabine, 414 U.S. 1107 (1973); it
subsequently amended its complaint, however, to withdraw its claim
to all islands except one identified as "Sam." 416 U.S. 903 (1974).
The city of Port Arthur, Tex., was permitted to intervene for
purposes of protecting its interests in the island claims of the
United States. 416 U.S. 965 (1974).
Page 426 U. S. 467
After hearings on referral, the Special Master has concluded and
recommends:
"1) That the boundary between the States of Texas and Louisiana
from 32� to 30� north latitude be established as shown upon Texas
Exhibit AAA 1-12, pursuant to agreement of the parties."
"2) That the boundary line from 30� north latitude to the Gulf
of Mexico and to the terminus of the jetties be established as
being the median line marked on Louisiana Exhibits DDD and III and
hereinabove described specifically, with the right to the States of
Texas and Louisiana to alter such boundary within Sabine Lake by
agreement within the time proposed."
"3) That the claim of the United States of America to an island
named 'Sam' be denied."
"4) That the lateral boundary in the Gulf of Mexico between the
States of Texas and Louisiana and between the State of Texas and
the United States of America be established as the line shown on
your Special Master's Exhibit and marked 'U.S.'"
"5) That the cost be taxed to the parties in accordance with
their contribution to the fund established by your Special Master
and deposited in the First National Bank & Trust Company,
Lincoln, Nebraska; that no costs be taxed for the services of your
Special Master herein; that, upon the order of termination of this
case, your Special Master file a report setting forth the amount of
money received by him from the parties for the payment of costs and
expenses pursuant to his requests and of the disbursement thereof
for approval by the Court unless, prior thereto, the parties in
writing have approved your Special Master's report as to the
disbursement of said moneys. "
Page 426 U. S. 468
Exceptions to the recommendations of the Special Master have
been filed by Louisiana and Texas. 423 U.S. 909 (1975).
At approximately 30� north latitude, the Sabine River enters
into Sabine Lake through three channels. Louisiana excepts to that
portion of the Special Master's report which marks the boundary
line between the States through the passage more recently known as
"middle pass," instead of in the geographic middle of the "west
pass." Louisiana contends that the Special Master acted contrary to
our rejection of the thalweg doctrine earlier in this case, 410
U.S. at
410 U. S. 709,
by considering navigation as the criterion to locate the boundary
in the middle channel. We think it clear, however, that the Special
Master makes reference to the volume of water flowing through these
passes solely in an analytic context reflecting the history and
geography of the region. We are persuaded that the Special Master
made his determination consistent with our earlier holding.
Texas has filed exceptions to the Special Master's delimitation
of the lateral seaward boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas argues
that the Special Master erred in concluding that Texas and
Louisiana did not have a historic boundary in the Gulf; we think
that misreads the findings of the Special Master. The Special
Master does not reject Texas' contention that there was a historic
"inchoate" boundary; what he concludes is that there has never been
an
established offshore boundary between the States. We
find the Special Master correct in his conclusion, and conclude
that he properly considered how such a boundary should be now
constructed.
All parties agree that the lateral seaward boundary is to be
constructed by reference to the median line, or equidistant
principle, recognized in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, [1964] 15 U.S.T. (pt. 2)
1606, T.I.A.S. No.
Page 426 U. S. 469
5639. [
Footnote 2] Texas,
however, excepts to the Special Master's determination that the
equidistant principle is to be applied to the coastlines of the
States as affected by jetties at the mouth of the Sabine River.
[
Footnote 3] Texas urges that
the relevant coastline is the coastline that existed in 1845 when
it was admitted to the Union. Texas argues that this is a domestic
dispute involving historical precedents, and that the States'
offshore boundary should be constructed as Congress would have done
in 1845 had it considered the matter.
The short answer to Texas' argument is that no line was drawn by
Congress, and that the boundary is being described in this
litigation for the first time. The Court
Page 426 U. S. 470
should not be called upon to speculate as to what Congress might
have done. We hold that the Special Master correctly applied the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone to this suit.
As we previously have recognized,
"the comprehensiveness of the Convention provides answers to
many of the lesser problems related to coastlines which, absent the
Convention, would be most troublesome."
United States v. California, 381 U.
S. 139,
381 U. S. 165
(1965). When read together, Arts. 12 and 8 of the Convention
clearly require that the median line be measured with reference to
the jetties. [
Footnote 4]
Accordingly, the exceptions of Louisiana and Texas are
overruled. The parties are directed within 90 days to submit a
proposed decree which has the approval of the Special Master. If
the States cannot agree, the Special Master is requested, after
appropriate hearings, to prepare and submit a recommended
decree.
[
Footnote 1]
We held in
United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S.
1 (1960), that, under the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat.
29, 43 U.S.C. § 1301
et seq., Texas as against the United
States was entitled to the natural resources of the seabed and
subsoil extending three marine leagues from its coastline into the
Gulf, but that Louisiana may claim such rights only for a distance
of three geographical miles from its coastline. Thus, for three
geographical miles, Texas and Louisiana are in dispute as to the
location of their boundary. The remaining boundary area out to
three marine leagues is in dispute between Texas and the United
States.
[
Footnote 2]
Article 12 of the Convention provides:
"1. Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to
each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing
agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial
sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from
the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The
provisions of this paragraph shall not apply, however, where it is
necessary by reason of historic title or other special
circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in
a way which is at variance with this provision."
"2. The line of delimitation between the territorial seas of two
States lying opposite to each other or adjacent to each other shall
be marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the
coastal States."
[1964] 15 U.S.T. (pt. 2), at 1610, T.I.A.S. No. 5639.
[
Footnote 3]
There are two jetties -- one originating from Texas and one from
Louisiana -- and each extending approximately 3.1 miles into the
Gulf. The jetties were constructed by the United States Army Corps
of Engineers in the 1880's to provide an adequate ship canal to the
Sabine Pass for the benefit of such cities as Port Arthur,
Beaumont, and others. They were completed to their present terminus
in 1936.
Article 8 of the Convention provides:
"For the purpose of delimiting the territorial sea, the
outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of
the harbour system shall be regarded as forming part of the
coast."
Id. at 1609, T.I.A.S. No. 5639.
[
Footnote 4]
The result is not inconsistent with our holding in
United
States v. Louisiana, 389 U. S. 155
(1967), that Texas' three-league grant under the Submerged Lands
Act is measured from Texas' historic coastline, without reference
to the jetties. We had earlier held that the coastal States had no
claim to the submerged lands off their coastlines, and that the
United States had paramount rights in these lands.
United
States v. California, 332 U. S. 19
(1947). This holding was applied to Louisiana and Texas in our
first Louisiana decision.
United States v. Louisiana,
339 U. S. 699
(1950). In our 1967 Louisiana decision,
supra, we were
concerned only with interpretation of the statutory grant of the
Submerged Lands Act. We concluded that
"[n]o definitions are required by this Court, and there is no
need to resort to international law; Texas has simply been given
that amount of submerged land it owned when it entered the
Union."
389 U.S. at
389 U. S.
160.