OCR Text |
Show 130 NAVIGABLE WATERS waters within the State under which the lands lie are navigable or nonnavigable is a Federal question, not a local one, and is to be determined according to the law and usages applied in the Federal courts.141 Technical Title a Question of Local Law It is for the State to decide what shall be done with respect to its acquired title to the lands underlying navigable waters-whether to retain title, or to confer it upon the owners of riparian lands. As to this the Supreme Court has said that:142 The technical title to the beds of the navigable rivers of the United States is either in the States in which the rivers are situated, or in the owners of the land bordering upon such rivers. Whether in one or the other is a question of local law. * * *143 Retention of Title Elected by State Many of the States have elected to retain title to the beds of navigable waters. For example, the State of California is declared by its legislature to be the owner of all land in the State below tidewater, below ordinary high watermark bordering upon tidewater, and below the water of a navigable lake 141 United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1, 14 (1935); United States v. Utah, 283 U. S. 64, 75 (1931); Ozark-Mahoning Co. v. State, 76 N. Dak. 464, 467-468, 37 N. W. (2d) 488 {.\9A9);Lynch v. Clements, 263 Pac. (2d) 153, 155 (Okla. 1953). 142 United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 60 (1913). In Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243, 262 (1913), the Court stated: "But it results from the principles already referred to that what shall be deemed a navigable water within the meaning of the local rules of property is for the determination of the several States. Thus, the State of California, if she sees fit, may confer upon the riparian owners the title to the bed of any navigable stream within her borders." 143In one line of cases, including Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387 (1892), the Supreme Court has expressed the view that the title to such beds is to be held in trust for the use of the people of the State for navigation and other public purposes and that this trust shall not be relinquished by transferring the title to private persons or others except to be used for the improvement of such public use or so as not to substantially impair it. This doctrine appears to have been particularly applied to the Great Lakes and the seacoast harbors and other tidal waters. However, there have been a number of other Federal cases approving of such transfer of beds under inland streams or small lakes subject only to the paramount Federal commerce power. Hence, the public trust doctrine apparently has presented little or no barrier in this regard. See, for example, St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U.S. 226, 242 (1891), where the court applied the Illinois rule that riparian landowners acquired ownership of the bed of navigable streams and made no reference to the public trust doctrine mentioned in Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Illinois, supra. For a fuller discussion of this matter, see Mann, F. L., Ellis, H. H., and Krausz, N. G. P., "Water-Use Law in Illinois," pp. 85-87 note 10 (1964). |