Who Has Title to Submerged Lands in Alaska?

Alaska v. United States

Alaska is attempting to secure possession of submerged land. States enter the Union on "equal footing" with the original 13 colonies and "and succeed to the United States’ title to the beds of navigable waters within their boundaries." The Submerged Lands Act establishes the presumption of title by the states to land within three miles from the state's territorial boundaries, unless the government sets lands aside before statehood. Alaska is trying to secure the rights to (1) a set of land that is beyond 3 miles from either the mainland or any individual islands, but may be within 3 miles of Alaska's "inland waters" and (2) land submerged in Glacier Bay which is undoubtedly "inland waters," but which the United States must "rebut Alaska’s presumption of title."

As to the first set of submerged lands, for Alaska to show that they are under "historic inland waters" Alaska must show that it "(1)exercises authority over the area; (2) has done so continuously; and (3) has done so with the acquiescence of foreign nations.” To do this, the Court argues that Alaska must show that it has asserted, if not exercised, its right to exclude vessels engaged in "innocent passage." Alaska's argument as to the first set of lands is that it inherited whatever rights Russia once had, and Russia's stationing of a brig on the waters outside of the boundaries for these lands demonstrated that it asserted is authority over the area. The Court rejects this argument because the only time that authority was implied by either Russia or the United States, was in relation to a vessel that was not engaged in "innocent passage," but rather, was on a mission to secure provisions, and because internal U.S correspondence asserted a right of passage. Further examples are dismissed by the Court as insufficient.

Alaska alternatively argues that the area is under a "jurisdictional bay" which is delineated by a set of islands, which (Alaska assert) are connected so as to form a bay. The Court rejects this argument because the "bay" is not a “well-marked indentation," nor is it something that a mariner would recognize.

Regarding Glacier Bay (National Monument), Alaska retains a presumption of title because the area qualifies as inland water, and is all less than 3 miles from the coastline. For the United States to win title it must have both set aside the lands (ie: as a refuge). By a series of Presidential orders, the Glacier Bay National Monument had already existed for 34 years as a federal reservation by the time Alaska achieved statehood in 1959, which the Court finds included submerged lands. Finally, because of provisions in the Alaska Statehood Act, the court found that the U.S. government “‘definitely declared or otherwise made very plain’ ” its intent to defeat Alaska’s title to these submerged lands," and that, any ambiguity in this article itself aside, what assertions are made are sufficient to demonstrate Congress' intent, which is all that is necessary.

The dissent argues that the proviso in the ASA is not "plain" or "clear" enough to sustain the Government's argument. I'm not going to go into great detail on this case, I simply don't have enough footing in State v. U.S. disputes to do it justice. Click on the link to the opinion at the top to see some cool pictures of what is in dispute at the bottom of the document.