.,ITORNY;Y C&NIcHAL 

June 9, 196-i' 

Hon. J. R. Singleton Opinion No. N-87 

Executive Director 

Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Re: What 1s the seaward 

Auat in, Texas boundary of Texas and 

whether Texas can unllaterally extend its gulfward boundaries; and, If 

so, how far can such 

boundaries be extended, 

Dear Mr. Singleton: and related questions. 

You have recently requested the opinion of this Office 

conaernlng the extent of your authority to regulate fishing In 

the waters of the Gulf of Mexico off the aoast of Texas. You 

cited Chapter 286, Acts’of the 47th Legislature, page 454 

(enacted In 1941 and codified as Article 5415a, Vernon’s Civil 

Statutes), which fixed the gulfward boundary of Texas at 27 

marine leagues from the coast. This Article was amended in 

1947.80 as to extend the boundary of Texas seawalrd to the outermost limits of the Continental Shelf (Acts 1947, 50th Leg., p. 

451, ch. 253). 

Mention la also made of Public Law 89-658, passed by 

the 89th Congress of the United States In 1966, codified as 

Sections 1091-1094, Title 16, United States Code. This leglslatlon eetabllshee a fisheries eohe off the coast of the United 

States, the limit of such zone being 12 nautical miles Into the 

sea from the coast. 

YOU state that you are presently exercising control and 

regulation oi fishing In aoaatal waters extending irom the shore 

to a line 3 marine leagues Into the Gulf cf Mexlae and you wonder, In view of the above cited statutes, whether you should 

attempt ta exercise jurisdiction over fishing out to the 12 

nautical mile line as set by the federal Fisherlea Zone Act or 

to the boundary as set by Article 5415a. Your specific questions 

are as follows: 

(1) ;~;nZ;;;;sunllate~ally extend Its gulfward 

* and, if so, how far can such 

boundarles’be extended? 

-393- 
r 

Hon. J. R. Singleton, Page 2 (MW87) 

(2) Do preaent applicable fishing re 

of Texas apply to the twelve 12 

BY 

latlons 

mile 

fisheries zone created by PL g-658. If 

not, to what portion of the twelve (12) 

mile zone do they apply? 

(3) Do present applicable fishing regulatlcns 

apply to an area contiguous to the Texas 

shore extending out twenty-seven (27) 

marine miles or to the edge of the contlnental shelf? 

To answer these questions, it is necessary to consider 

the history of the ownership of the submerged lands off the 

aoaet of Texas. In 1950, the Supreme Court of the United States, 

In Unlted States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 340 U.S. 900, held that 

themlted States possessed paramount rights ln all submerged 

lands off the coast OS Texas seaward of the low-water mark. In 

1953 the Congreea of the United States passed the Submerged 

Lands Act, 67 Statutes, 29, aodlfled as Sections 1301-1315, Title 

43, United States Code. This enactment relinquished the title 

of the United States in the submerged lands off the shores of 

the coastal states to the states. The seaward extent was set 

at 3 geographic miles distant from the coast line, or such addltlonal distance as its seaward boundary existed from its coast 

at the time a state became a member of the United States; with 

a limit of three miles in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and 

three leagues in the Gulf of Mexico. The record in the Congress 

made It clear that the Texas boundary at ail times since 1836 

existed at three marine leaguea in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The gulfward boundary- OS Texas subsequently was confirmed 

at 3 marine leagues from the coast. -United States v. Louisiana, 

et al., 363 U.S. 1 (1960). 

It eheuld be observed that the Submerged Lands Act 

relinqulshcd to the states all right, title and lntereet to the 

lands beneath the coastal waters and to “natural resourcea” in 

the area in queet.len. See Seation 1311 of Title 43, U.S.C.; 

Section 1311 also declares that it ia the intent sf Congress 

to leave the management, admlnlstratlen, development and use 

of the “natural resources” to the states. 

The term “natural resources” was defined in Section 

1301 aa follows: 

-394- 
Hon. J. R. Singleton, Page 3 (M-87) 

“(e) The term ‘natural resources’ lneludes, without llmltlng the generality thereof, 

oil, gas and all other minerals, and fish, 

shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, 

kelp, and other marine ~anlmal and plant life but 

does not include water power[ or the use of water 

for the production of power.' 

Accordingly, It would seem clear that the State of 

Texas now has ownership of the natural resources including 

marine life within the area ceded by the Submerged Land@ Act. 

Furthermore, at the time of the passage of such Act in 1953, 

Texas was given the exclusive power to regulate the natural 

resources in such area. 

Ae noted above, the case of United States v. Louisiana, 

363 U.S. 1 (1960) determine3 ‘th’ t T 

%‘%%submerged land and’all attendant zeso%ie 

hd hip 

?n ?:::,a 

bounded by a line 3 marine leagues distant from Texas’ coast, 

Moreover , this case also decided the rights of tha United 

State6 In the ~eubmerged lands off the coast of Texas beyond 

such 3 league line, and at page 84 of the opinion, the Court 

defined the respective rights of Texas and the United States 

as fOllOW8: 

“As to the State of Texas, a decree will be 

entered (1) declaring that the State is entitled, 

as against the United Statea, to the lands, mlnerals, and other natural resources underlying the 

Gulf of Mexico ta a distance of three leagues from 

Texas’ aoaat, that is, from the line of ordinary 

low-water mark and eutcr limit of inland waters; 

(2) declaring that the United States is entitled, 

as against Texas, to no interest therein; (3) 

declaring that the Unlted States is entitled, as 

against Texas, to all 8uch lands, mlnerala, anti 

resources lying beyond that area, and extending 

to the,edge of the Continental Shelf; (4) enjoining 

the State from interfering with the rights of the 

United States therein; and (5) directing Texas 

appropriately to account to the United States for 

all sums of money derived since June 5, 1950, 

from the area to which the United States 1~ declared to be entitled.” 

-395- 
Hon. J. R. Singleton, Page 4 (M-87) 

This language will admit no other interpretation but 

that the United States, as against Texas, is entitled to all 

lands, mlnerala and resources lying gulfward beyond the 3 

marine league line, and extending seaward to the edge of the 

Contlnental Shelf. The statutes of Texas, which are cited 

above and which purport to set the boundary of Texas at a 

greater distance gulfward than the 3 marine leagues from the 

coast are Ineffective as a result of this decision. The gulfward boundary of Texas is a line extending 3 marine leagues 

from the coast, and no action of the Legislature or any offlclal agency of Texas aan extend this boundary any further into 

the Gulf of Mexico, without the approval of the United States. 

Our analysis of United States v,, Louisiana, et al. is 

conslatent with the meaning read 1 t thl d 1 1 b th 

courta of Texas. Employer8 MutualnCEsualtsy Ern~a~~ vJ: Sarkels, 

407 S.W;2d 839 (Tex.Clv.App. 19bb, error ref., n.r.e.1. 

Furthermore, the above mentioned federal Fisherlea Zone 

Act contains no provision enlarglng a state’s ownership of submerged lands and the attendant reseurcc8 and no provision 

enlarging a state’s power ts regulate lands and resources wlthin the fisheries zone. On the contrary, the Act spec~flcally 

states that it shall not be “construed as extending the Jurlsdiction of the states to the natural re8ources beneath and in 

the waters within the flaherlea zone estabilahed. . .” 

The above dlaauaslon ehould answer most of the questions you have submitted tt this offlae. Texas cannot unilaterally exbend its gulfward boundaries by legislation. The 

flehlng regulations promulgated by Texas apply only to the 3 

marine league boundary, an@ not tut to the 12 nautical mile 

line act by Public Law 8 

as provided ln Artlclt 5 2 

-658, or te the Continental Shelf line 

15a. 

Thre ~ztlll remains t~he question OS whather Texa8, 

while owningthe submerged lands and rtamarcea ln an area bounded 

by a line 3 marlne leagues from the Coast, oan exElualvely 

regulate, aontrtl and administer the rtseuraez feund within 

auch.boundarlas. The Submerged Lands Act. stated that it was 

the policy of’ the. United Stat~ez Congrera to permit the COaStal 

states to control and regulate the development of the natural 

resources in the area ceded under the Act. 

In Cersa v. Tawes,, 149 F.Supp. 771 (D.C. Md. 1957)’ 

a three judge district ceurt held that the regulatlen OS Coastal 

-3961 
. 

Hon. J. R. Singleton, Page 5 (M-87) 

fisherlee in the territorial waters granted to the states by 

th& Submerged Lands Act was within the police power 3f the 

individual states, absent any conflicting legislation by Csngress lmpssing regulatory procedures under the Commerce Clause 

of the United States Constltuti3n. The decision was affirmed 

by the Supreme Cmrt of the United States, without discussion, 

at 355 U.S. 37 (1957). 

There has been no federal legislation which purports 

to regulate the fishing industry within the 3 league line, and 

the only Act generally in point being the Fisheries Zone legi&- 

latlon referred to and discussed above. Section 4 of this 

statute provides in part that nothing in the Act shall be 

interpreted as “dlmlnlshlng” the jurisdiction of the several 

states to administer “the natural resources beneath and in the 

fisheries zone”. Therefore, this enactment seems to be confirming the policy of Congres s expressed in the Submerged LEnde 

Act that the states will be empowered to regulate and control 

resources within the boundaries confirmed, and in the case of 

Texat, three marine leagues gulfward. It is therefore concluded 

that Texas may presently exercise exclusive regulation of fishing 

from its shores to the three marine league line. 

As to the State’s right to regulate flehlng outside the 

3 league gulfward boundary, there are cases which hold that in the 

absence of conflicting Federal legislation the States may so 

regulate ae to their citizens and for their protection and the 

protection of their adjacent natural resources. Sklrlotee v. 

Florida, 313 U.S. 69 (1941) and cases cited therein. However, 

untilhe Legislature so provides, it is apparent that this la a 

hypothetical queetlon. The long-established policy of this office 

is not to attempt to pass upon hypothetical questions. Obviously, 

the best procedure here would be for mutual agreements between 

the State and the Federal Government in the area gulfward of State 

boundaries. If this is not possible, then the Legislature may 

want to consider any action which would not conflict with Federal 

leglslatlon, and In such event we will then be glad to pass upon 

the legal questions which may arise. 

SUMMARY 

The gulfward boundary of the State of Texas 

Is a line three marine leagues distant from 

the coast and in such waters Texas 15 

empowered to control and regulate fishing. 

Texas cannot unilaterally extend its gulfward 

boundary by legislation. 

-397- 
Hon. J. R. Singleton, Page 6 (M-87) 

j%$4 very truly, 

Prepared by Lonny F. Zwiener 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman 

Arthur Sandlin 

Milton Richardson 

Kerns Taylor 

W. 0. Schultz 

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT 

A. J. Carubbi, Jr. 

-398-