UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA
No. 5,
Orig.
Decided June 23, 1947, and May 17, 1965 — Order and decree entered October 27, 1947 — Supplemental decree entered January 31, 1966
Second supplemental decree entered June 13, 1977
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
For the purpose of identifying with greater particularity parts of the boundary line, as defined by the Supplemental Decree of January 31, 1966, 382 U. S. 448, between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the State of California, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Court's Supplemental Decree of January 31, 1966, be, and the same is hereby, further supplemented as follows:
1.Closing Lines Across Entrances to Bodies of Inland Waters
a. The inland waters of the following bodies of water are enclosed by straight lines between the mean lower low-water lines at the seaward ends of the jetties located at their mouths:
1. Humboldt Bay
2. Port Hueneme
3. Santa Ana River
4. Agua Hedionda Lagoon
b. The inland waters of San Francisco Bay are those enclosed by a series of straight lines from the southwestern head of Point Bonita (37°48'56"N, 122°31' 44"W); thence to the western edge of an unnamed island immediately to the south (37°48/55"N, 122°31/44.2//W); thence southward to the western edge of a second unnamed island (37°48/53"N,- 122°31'44"W); thence southward to the western edge of a third unnamed island (37°46'57"N, 122°30'52"W); thence to a western head of Point Lobos (37°46'53"N, 122°30'49"W). The length of this closing line is 2.18 nautical miles.
c. The inland waters of Bodega-Tomales Bay are those enclosed by a straight line drawn from Bodega Head (38° 17'53.8"N, 123°03/25.3"W); thence to the western edge of an unnamed island northwest of Tómales Point (38° 14'28.4"N, 122°59'41.5"W); thence southward to Tómales Point (38°14/26.5"N, 122°59'39"W).
d. The closing lines delineated in the foregoing paragraph are part of the coastline of California; The foregoing is without prejudice to the right of either party to assert or deny that other closing lines are part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the Federal-State boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, as amended.
2. Artificial Extensions of the Coastline
The mean lower low-water line along each of the following structures is part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the Federal-State boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act:
a. The Morro Bay breakwater
b. The Port San Luis breakwater
c. The Santa Barbara breakwater
d. The Ventura Marina breakwater
e. The Channel Islands Harbor breakwater
f. Three rubble groins at Point Mugu
g. The Santa Monica breakwater
h. The Venice Beach groin
i. The Marina del Rey breakwater
j. Three rubble groins along Dockweiler Beach
k. The Redondo Beach breakwater
l. Two harbor jetties at Newport Bay
m. The Dana Point breakwater
n. The Oceanside breakwater
o. Two harbor jetties at entrance to Mission Bay
p. The Zuniga jetty at San Diego (including the southern seaward end of this entire structure)
The foregoing is without prejudice to the right of either party to assert or deny that other artificial structures are part of the coastline of California for purposes of establishing the Federal-State boundary line under the Submerged Lands Act.
3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.