Tidelands oil controversy
The Tidelands oil controversy centers on the jurisdiction and ownership of submerged lands along the U.S. coastline, particularly impacting states like California, Louisiana, and Texas. In the 1920s and 1930s, as these states began leasing offshore oil, the federal government recognized the potential revenue from these resources, leading to a series of legal disputes. The controversy escalated in 1945 when the Continental Shelf Proclamation shifted federal jurisdiction over mineral resources in submerged lands, challenging state claims. Key litigation, including cases such as United States v. California and United States v. Louisiana, ultimately denied state ownership of tidelands, emphasizing national rights over local claims. However, this judicial stance was met with legislative action, resulting in the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, which restored state ownership of these areas. This act was later upheld in Alabama v. Texas, marking a significant shift towards recognizing state rights. By the end of the 1950s, the Supreme Court established a clearer territorial limit for states, balancing state and federal interests in these valuable resources. Overall, the Tidelands oil controversy highlights complex interactions between state rights, federal authority, and the management of natural resources.
Tidelands oil controversy
Date: 1945
Description: Political dispute and litigation beginning in 1945 regarding state versus federal ownership of submerged offshore lands, or tidelands.
Significance: In 1947 the Supreme Court held that the federal government had “paramount rights” over the tidelands, a decision that ultimately resulted in a 1953 statute that gave coastal states the rights to the offshore lands along their coasts.
The tidelands, a three-mile strip of submerged land along the coast, traditionally were controlled by the states. When California, Louisiana, and Texas issued offshore oil leases in the 1920’s and 1930’s, federal and state governments began to see the tidelands as a possible source of revenue. The first real challenge to the states’ jurisdiction was in 1945, when the Continental Shelf Proclamation gave the federal government jurisdiction over the mineral resources in submerged lands on the continental shelf. Litigation over tidelands began in May, 1945, when the federal government sought to enjoin Pacific Western Oil, a private corporation, from drilling offshore near Santa Barbara, California. This suit was strategically withdrawn in October in order to concentrate on the issue of state ownership in the cases United States v. California (1947), United States v. Louisiana (1947), and United States v. Texas (1947). California and Louisiana claimed the tidelands three miles seaward from the low watermark. Texas claimed the distance of three maritime leagues.
In the majority opinion in the tidelands cases, Justice Hugo L. Black denied all state claims to title, invoking “paramount” national rights. United States v. California (1947) required cession of lands within the three-mile limit by all states. State regulatory activity regarding sponge or oyster beds might operate concurrently, but oil was a vital national resource. The tidelands decisions severely limited Pollard v. Hagan (1845), which had upheld state ownership of submerged lands beneath navigable waterways.
Congress responded by passing remedial legislation, the Submerged Lands Act (1953), which reinvested ownership of tidelands in the states. This act was upheld in Alabama v. Texas (1954). Further litigation in 1959 resulted in the Court’s acceptance of the historical three-mile territorial limit, with a three-maritime-league limit for Texas. Justice John M. Harlan II’s opinion in United States v. Louisiana (1960) upheld the states’ rights claims on a historical basis. The decision marked an important reassessment of the balance between state and nation.
Bibliography
Bailey, Ernest R. The Tidelands Oil Controversy: A Legal and Historical Analysis. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1953.
Dary, Benjamin. Essential Injustice: When Legal Institutions Cannot Resolve Environmental and Land Use Disputes. New York: Springer Verlag, 1997.
Keeton, W. Page. “Federal and State Claims to Submerged Lands Under Coastal Waters.” Texas Law Review 25 (1947): 262.