Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/193/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:18:54+00:00

Document:
"reservoir sites heretofore located or selected shall remain segregated and reserved from entry or settlement as provided by [the 1888 Act]."
The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Title to Utah Lake's bed passed to Utah under the equal footing doctrine upon Utah's admission to the Union. Pp. 482 U. S. 200-209.
waters within the federal reservation, but would additionally have to establish that Congress affirmatively intended to defeat the future State's title to such land. Pp. 482 U. S. 200-202.
(b) The 1888 Act fails to make sufficiently plain a congressional intent to include the bed of Utah Lake within the Federal Government's reservation. The Act's language did not necessarily refer to lands under navigable waters, which lands were already the property of the United States, and were already exempt from sale, entry, settlement, or occupation under the general land laws. Moreover, the concerns that motivated Congress to enact the statute -- concerns as to homesteaders' possible monoplization of and speculation in arid lands suitable for reservoir sites or irrigation works -- had nothing to do with the beds of navigable waters. There is no merit to the Federal Government's contention that, in view of remarks made by the Geological Survey in reserving Utah Lake, Congress' enactment of the 1890 Act ratified the Survey's reservation of the lakebed. The Survey's references to the "segregation" of the lakebed, placed in the proper context, could refer to the segregation of the lands adjacent to the lake. Moreover, neither the language nor the legislative history of the 1890 Act supports the conclusion that Congress intended to ratify a reservation of the lakebed. 482 U. S. 202-207.
(c) Even assuming that Congress did intend to reserve the lakebed in either the 1888 Act or the 1890 Act, Congress did not clearly express an intention to defeat Utah's claim to the lakebed under the equal footing doctrine upon entry into statehood. The 1888 Act's structure and history strongly suggest that Congress had no such intent. Moreover, the transfer of title of the lakebed to Utah would not necessarily prevent the Federal Government from subsequently developing a reservoir or water reclamation project at the lake, in any event. The broad sweep of the 1888 Act, which had the practical effect of reserving all of the public lands in the West from settlement, cannot be reconciled with an intent to defeat the States' title to the land under navigable waters under the equal footing doctrine. 482 U. S. 208-209.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post p. 482 U. S. 209.
The issue in this case is whether title to the bed of Utah Lake passed to the State of Utah under the equal footing doctrine upon Utah's admission to the Union in 1896.
The equal footing doctrine is deeply rooted in history, and the proper application of the doctrine requires an understanding of its origins. Under English common law, the English Crown held sovereign title to all lands underlying navigable waters. Because title to such land was important to the sovereign's ability to control navigation, fishing, and other commercial activity on rivers and lakes, ownership of this land was considered an essential attribute of sovereignty.
Title to such land was therefore vested in the sovereign for the benefit of the whole people. See Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, 152 U. S. 11-14 (1894). When the 13 Colonies became independent from Great Britain, they claimed title to the lands under navigable waters within their boundaries as the sovereign successors to the English Crown. Id. at 152 U. S. 15. Because all subsequently admitted States enter the Union on an "equal footing" with the original 13 States, they too hold title to the land under navigable waters within their boundaries upon entry into the Union. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 (1845).
"By the Constitution, as is now well settled, the United States, having rightfully acquired the Territories, and being the only government which can impose laws upon them, have the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and municipal, Federal and state, over all the Territories, so long as they remain in territorial condition. . . ."
States, or to carry out other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the United States hold the Territory."
Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. at 152 U. S. 48. Thus, under the Constitution, the Federal Government could defeat a prospective State's title to land under navigable waters by a pre-statehood conveyance of the land to a private party for a public purpose appropriate to the Territory. The Court further noted, however, that Congress had never undertaken by general land laws to dispose of land under navigable waters. Ibid. From this, the Court inferred a congressional policy (although not a constitutional obligation) to grant away land under navigable waters only "in case of some international duty or public exigency." Id. at 152 U. S. 50.
"[T]he United States early adopted and constantly has adhered to the policy of regarding lands under navigable waters in acquired territory, while under its sole dominion, as held for the ultimate benefit of future States, and so has refrained from making any disposal thereof, save in exceptional instances when impelled to particular disposals by some international duty or public exigency. It follows from this that disposals by the United States during the territorial period are not lightly to be inferred, and should not be regarded as intended unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain."
United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U. S. 49, 270 U. S. 55 (1926).
must not infer such a conveyance unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain, or was rendered in clear and especial words, or unless the claim confirmed in terms embraces the land under the waters of the stream."
Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 450 U. S. 552 (1981) (internal quotations omitted; citations omitted). Indeed, in only a single case -- Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U. S. 620 (1970) -- have we concluded that Congress intended to grant sovereign lands to a private party. The holding in Choctaw Nation, moreover, rested on the unusual history behind the Indian treaties at issue in that case, and indispensable to the holding was a promise to the Indian Tribe that no part of the reservation would become part of a State. Montana v. United States, supra, at 450 U. S. 555, n. 5. Choctaw Nation was thus literally a "singular exception," in which the result depended "on very peculiar circumstances." 450 U.S. at 455 U. S. 555, n. 5.
"[t]he opening of the arid lands to homesteading raised the specter that settlers might claim lands more suitable for reservoir sites or other irrigation works, impeding future reclamation efforts."
"sites for reservoirs and other hydraulic works necessary for the storage and utilization of water for irrigation and the prevention of floods and overflows."
irrigation purposes and all the lands made susceptible of irrigation by such reservoirs, ditches or canals are from this time henceforth hereby reserved from sale as the property of the United States, and shall not be subject after the passage of this act, to entry, settlement or occupation until further provided by law."
"site of Utah Lake in Utah County in the Territory of Utah is hereby selected as a reservoir site, together with all lands situate within two statute miles of the border of said lake at high water."
App. 19. The Commissioner of the General Land Office subsequently informed the Land Office at Salt Lake City of the selection of "the site of Utah Lake" as "a reservoir site," and instructed the Land Office "to refuse further entries or filing on the lands designated, in accordance with the [Sundry Appropriations] Act of October 2, 1888." Letter of Apr. 11, 1889, App. 21. The selection of Utah Lake as a reservoir was confirmed in the official reports of the Geological Survey to Congress.
"that reservoir sites heretofore located or selected shall remain segregated and reserved from entry or settlement as provided by [the 1888 Act]."
was "to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States." 28 Stat. 107.
In 1976, the Bureau of Land Management of the United States Department of the Interior issued oil and gas leases for lands underlying Utah Lake. Viewing this as a violation of its ownership and property rights to the bed of Utah Lake, the State of Utah brought suit in the District Court for the District of Utah seeking a declaratory judgment that it, rather than the United States, had title to the lakebed. Utah also sought an injunction against interference with its alleged ownership and management rights. In its complaint, Utah claimed that, on January 4, 1896, by virtue of the State's admission into the Union on an equal footing with all other States, the State of Utah became the owner of the bed of Utah Lake. The United States, in turn, answered that title to the lakebed remained in federal ownership by operation of Major Powell's selection of the lake as a reservoir site in 1889. The District Court granted summary judgment for the United States, holding that the United States held title to the bed of Utah Lake. 624 F.Supp. 622 (1983). The District Court found that the withdrawal of the bed of Utah Lake in 1889 pursuant to the 1888 Act defeated Utah's claim to title under the equal footing doctrine. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 780 F.2d 1515 (1985). We granted certiorari, 479 U.S. 881 (1986), and now reverse.
The Property Clause grants Congress plenary power to regulate and dispose of land within the Territories, and assuredly Congress also has the power to acquire land in aid of other powers conferred on it by the Constitution. Under Utah's view, however, while the United States could create a reservoir site by granting title to Utah Lake to a private entity, the United States could not accomplish the same purpose by a means that would keep Utah Lake under federal control. We need not decide that question today, however, because even if a reservation of the bed of Utah Lake could defeat Utah's claim, it was not accomplished on these facts.
title to land under navigable waters "unless the intention was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain." United States v. Holt State Bank, supra, at 270 U. S. 55.
When Congress intends to convey land under navigable waters to a private party, of necessity it must also intend to defeat the future State's claim to the land. When Congress reserves land for a particular purpose, however, it may not also intend to defeat a future State's title to the land. The land remains in federal control, and therefore may still be held for the ultimate benefit of future States. Moreover, even if the land under navigable water passes to the State, the Federal Government may still control, develop, and use the waters for its own purposes. Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546, 373 U. S. 597-598 (1963). Congress, for example, may intend to create a reservoir, but also intend to let the State obtain title to the land underneath this reservoir upon entry into statehood. Such an intent would not be unusual. In Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544 (1981), we found that Congress intended to permit the State to take title to the bed of a navigable river even though the river was in the midst of an Indian Reservation, and in United States v. Holt State Bank, supra, we held that Congress intended the State to hold title to the bed of a navigable lake wholly within the boundaries of an Indian Reservation.
Given the longstanding policy of holding land under navigable waters for the ultimate benefit of the States, therefore, we would not infer an intent to defeat a State's equal footing entitlement from the mere act of reservation itself. Assuming, arguendo, that a reservation of land could be effective to overcome the strong presumption against the defeat of state title, the United States would not merely be required to establish that Congress clearly intended to include land under navigable waters within the federal reservation; the United States would additionally have to establish that Congress affirmatively intended to defeat the future State's title to such land.
"reserved from sale as the property of the United States, and shall not be subject . . . to entry, settlement or occupation until further provided by law."
25 Stat. 527. The words of the 1888 Act did not necessarily refer to lands under navigable waters, because lands under navigable lakes and rivers such as the bed of Utah Lake were already the property of the United States, and were already exempt from sale, entry, settlement, or occupation under the general land laws. As this Court recognized in Shively v. Bowlby, supra, at 152 U. S. 48, "Congress has never undertaken by general laws to dispose of" land under navigable waters. See also Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U. S. 273, 153 U. S. 284 (1894) (applying Shively v. Bolby, supra, to hold that "the general legislation of Congress in respect to public lands does not extend to tide lands"); Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 146 U. S. 437 (1892) (holding that "the same doctrine as to the dominion and sovereignty over and ownership of lands under the navigable waters . . . applies, which obtains at the common law as to the dominion and sovereignty over and ownership of lands under tide waters on the borders of the sea"). Therefore, little purpose would have been served by the reservation of the bed of Utah Lake. Moreover, the concerns with monopolization and speculation that motivated Congress to enact the 1888 Act, see P. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development 641 (1968), had nothing to do with the beds of navigable rivers and lakes.
lands reserved by this provision to settlement under the homestead laws."
25 Stat. 527. This proviso would permit the President to open any land reserved under the 1888 Act to settlement under the homesteading laws. We find it inconceivable that Congress intended by this simple proviso to abandon its long-held and unyielding policy of never permitting the sale or settlement of land under navigable waters under the general land laws. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. at 152 U. S. 48. The proviso can be interpreted consistently with that policy only if lands under navigable waters were not subject to reservation under the 1888 Act in the first instance.
"reservoir sites heretofore located or selected shall remain segregated and reserved from entry or settlement as provided by [the 1888] Act, until otherwise provided by law."
26 Stat. 391. Thus, the United States argues, Congress ratified the reservation of the lakebed of Utah Lake.
"furnish the specifications for its withdrawal as such under the law, so far as the lands covered or overflowed by it or the lands bordering upon it were still public lands."
mean high-water elevation"). Given that the bed of Utah Lake was already "segregated" from public sale, the United States Geological Survey Reports are best understood as reporting the further segregation of the lands adjacent to the lake which, until the reservation of Utah Lake in 1889, had not been segregated, and thus had been available for public settlement. In the Eleventh Annual Report, for example, the Geological Survey's announcement that "the segregation" of Utah Lake "includ[ed] not only the bed but the lowlands up to mean high water," in our view, simply announced an increase in the segregated portion of Utah Lake. App. 29. Because the bed of Utah Lake had been segregated as early as 1878, the Geological Survey's statement that the lakebed was segregated need not be taken as a statement that the bed was included within the reservation. Similarly, the Tenth Annual Report's statement that a Geological Survey employee would furnish specifications for a withdrawal "so far as the lands covered or overflowed by [Utah Lake] or the lands bordering upon it were still public lands," id. at 25 (emphasis supplied), is consistent with an intention that the Geological Survey would withdraw those lands still subject to public settlement, i.e., the lands that were "still public lands." See Baynard, supra, § 1.1, p. 2 ("Most enduringly, the public lands have been defined as those lands subject to sale or other disposal under the general land laws") (emphasis in original). Because the bed of Utah Lake was not at that time "public land" subject to settlement, we think it doubtful that the Tenth Annual Report should be understood as informing Congress that the Geological Survey had reserved the bed of Utah Lake.
"further entries of the lands adjoining Utah Lake will have a tendency to defeat the purposes of [the 1888 Act] and obstruct the use of the lake as a natural reservoir,"
App. 20, and that "speedy action" was necessary to avoid settlement. Ibid. Thus, Major Powell recommended that "the Register of the Land Office at Salt Lake City be instructed to refuse entries of public land within" two miles of the lake. Ibid. The local land office was so instructed by the Department of the Interior. Id. at 21.
"[R]eservoir sites heretofore located or selected shall remain segregated and reserved from entry or settlement as provided by said act, until otherwise provided by law. . . ."
In sum, the 1890 Act can be understood as ratifying a reservation of the bed of Utah Lake only by ignoring the language of the 1890 Act and by taking the Geological Survey's references to the bed of Utah Lake out of context. Under our precedents, however, we cannot so lightly infer the reservation of land under navigable waters. We conclude, therefore, that the 1890 Act no more "definitely declared or otherwise made very plain'" Congress' intention to reserve Utah Lake than had the 1888 Act. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. at 450 U. S. 552 (quoting United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. at 270 U. S. 55).
Even if Congress did intend to reserve the bed of Utah Lake in either the 1888 Act or the 1890 Act, however, Congress did not clearly express an intention to defeat Utah's claim to the lakebed under the equal footing doctrine upon entry into statehood. The United States points to no evidence of a congressional intent to defeat Utah's entitlement to the bed of Utah Lake, and the structure and the history of the 1888 Act strongly suggest that Congress had no such intention. On its face, the 1888 Act does not purport to defeat the entitlement of future States to any land reserved. Instead, the Act merely provides that any reserved land is "reserved from sale" and "shall not be subject . . . to entry, settlement or occupation"; it makes no mention of the States' entitlement to the beds of navigable rivers and lakes upon entry into statehood. The transfer of title of the bed of Utah Lake to Utah, moreover, would not necessarily prevent the Federal Government from subsequently developing a reservoir or water reclamation project at the lake, in any event. See, e.g., Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423, 283 U. S. 451-452, 283 U. S. 457 (1931) (holding that the United States has power to construct a dam and reservoir on a navigable river and reserving question of such power for purpose of irrigating public lands).
with Congress' policy of holding this land for the ultimate benefit of the future States.
* The dissent misconstrues our argument with regard to the segregation of Utah Lake between 1856 and 1878. Post at 482 U. S. 214, n. 5. Our point is not that the meander line was a "boundary" between the lands under the navigable waters and the adjacent lands granted by the Federal Government to private citizens, nor that this line settled the property rights of those who occupied exposed land within the meander line when Utah Lake receded. The resolution of these issues is complex, depending in large measure on the facts of the specific survey. See 4 Record, Doc. J, p. 27 (Department of Interior Memorandum discussing the effect of the exposure of land contained within the meander line to Utah Lake on land patents granted before 1888); Poynter v. Chipman, 8 Utah 442, 32 P. 690 (1893) (case involving title to land between meander line and shoreline of Utah Lake); Knudsen v. Omanson, 10 Utah 124, 37 P. 250 (1894) (same); Hinckley v. Peay, 22 Utah 21, 60 P. 1012 (1900) (same). We express no opinion on these matters. Instead, our point is a simpler one -- that the meander line "segregated" the bed of Utah Lake from public sale even before the 1889 reservation, and, accordingly, that the references to the "segregation" of the lakebed by the United States Geological Survey cannot be taken as unambiguous statements of an intent to include the lakebed within the 1889 reservation.
JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting.
"was definitely declared or otherwise made very plain, or was rendered in clear and especial words, or unless the claim confirmed in terms embraces the land under the waters of the stream."
Montana v. United States, 450 U. S. 544, 450 U. S. 552 (1981) (internal quotations omitted; citations omitted). In this case, we are presented with the question whether a congressional reservation of land unto the United States during the territorial period has defeated a State's claim to title under the equal footing doctrine. Contrary to the Court's opinion and judgment today, I am confident that Congress has the power to prevent ownership of land underlying a navigable water from passing to a new State by reserving the land to itself for an appropriate public purpose, and that Congress plainly and specifically expressed its intent to exercise that power with respect to Utah Lake in the Sundry Appropriations Act of Aug. 30, 1890, 26 Stat. 371, 390-392 (1890 Act).
"We cannot doubt . . . that Congress has the power to make grants of lands below high water mark of navigable waters in any Territory of the United States, whenever it becomes necessary to do so in order to perform international obligations, or to effect the improvement of such lands for the promotion and convenience of commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or to carry out other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the United States hold the Territory."
(Emphasis added.) The development of reservoirs for irrigation in the arid West is surely an appropriate public purpose, and there is no reason to distinguish between a conveyance to a third party required for that purpose and a reservation unto the United States for the same purpose. Contrary to petitioner's position, were I to make a distinction, I would more readily find a reservation constitutionally permissible than a conveyance. In the case of a reservation, the submerged lands retain their sovereign status. See ante at 482 U. S. 195-196. And if Congress later determines that the lands are no longer needed by the Federal Government for a public purpose, it can at that time transfer title to the State.
"the site of Utah Lake in Utah County in the Territory of Utah is hereby selected as a reservoir site, together with all lands situate within two statute miles of the border of said lake at high water."
voir site and to furnish the specifications for its withdrawal as such under the law, so far as the lands covered or overflowed by it or the lands bordering upon it were still public lands."
Id. at 88; App. 25 (emphasis added). It is difficult to imagine a clearer statement to Congress of the reservation of the bed of Utah Lake. [Footnote 4] Major Powell, the director of the agency charged with implementing the 1888 Act, unquestionably understood the Act to authorize the reservation of lands underlying navigable waters. His contemporaneous construction of the Act is entitled to considerable deference. Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 380 U. S. 16 (1965). The argument advanced by the majority in support of its position that the 1888 Act does not authorize the reservation of a lakebed, ante at 482 U. S. 203-204, is singularly unpersuasive as a basis for rejecting the USGS's interpretation.
lands shall in like manner be reserved from the date of the location or selection thereof."
26 Stat. 391. The "broad sweep of the 1888 Act," ante at 482 U. S. 208, is therefore irrelevant, since that Act was repealed before Utah was admitted to the Union. The pertinent statute, the 1890 Act, is more limited in scope, reserving to the United States only reservoir sites actually selected by the USGS.
the following lists, was made to include not only the bed but the lowlands up to mean high water."
"shall be restricted to and shall contain only so much land as is actually necessary for the construction and maintenance of reservoirs."
Although the 1891 legislation reflected congressional concern about the extent of reservoir site reservations, Congress declined to disturb the reserved status of the bed of Utah Lake. Similarly, in the Act of Feb. 26, 1897, 29 Stat. 599, 43 U.S.C. § 664, Congress provided that all reservoir sites reserved or to be reserved by the United States were to be open for the construction of reservoirs, canals, and ditches for irrigation under rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, but once again declined to disturb the 1888 Act reservations themselves.
drawing down below the natural shorelines, rather than by raising it above them. In other words, if raised above, the lake will be too large for the evaporation area. The evaporation is even now too great in proportion to the amount of water than can be taken out."
new settlements and potentially subjecting the Government to claims for compensation.
"even if the land under navigable water passes to the State, the Federal Government may still control, develop, and use the waters for its own purposes."
"[t]he transfer of title of the bed of Utah Lake to Utah . . . would not necessarily prevent the federal government from subsequently developing a reservoir or water reclamation project at the lake in any event."
"Since the grant of authority to build the dam and reservoir is valid as an exercise of the Constitutional power to improve navigation, we have no occasion to decide whether the authority to construct the dam and reservoir might not also have been constitutionally conferred for the specified purpose of irrigating public lands of the United States."
compensation is open to question, Congress may have intended to reserve the lakebed in order to avoid such claims. The majority's refusal to acknowledge such intent because it is not absolutely certain that the reservation was necessary to effectuate Congress' purpose is quite strange.
In sum, the reservation by the USGS of Utah Lake by its plain "terms embraces the land under the waters of the [lake]," and Congress "definitely declared" its intent to ratify that reservation in the 1890 Act. See Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. at 450 U. S. 552. As I see it, Utah did not obtain title to the bed of the lake upon its admission to the Union, and I therefore dissent.
Major Powell was quite familiar with the 1888 Act, having been for many years the leading proponent of a federal policy for reclamation of the arid West and essentially the only authority in the Federal Government on the science of irrigation. See W. Darrah, Powell of the Colorado 299-314 (1951). In 1878, he submitted to Congress his Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, with a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah, H.R. Exec. Doc. No. 73, 45th Cong., 2d Sess. (1878), a seminal work in the evolution of federal reclamation policy. See P. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development 645 (1968). In 1888, Major Powell reported to the Senate, at its request, 19 Cong.Rec. 2428-2429 (1888), on the appropriation that would be required to "investigate the practicability of constructing reservoirs for the storage of water in the arid region of the United States," the designation of sites for such reservoirs and related works, and the segregation of lands susceptible to irrigation. In the report, which was submitted to the Senate on May 11, 1888, Powell proposed language for an appropriations bill which was incorporated, with two changes not pertinent here, into the 1888 Act. See Tenth Annual Report of USGS to Secretary of the Interior 1888-1889, Part II -- Irrigation, H.R.Exec.Doc. No. 1, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 5, pp. 8-14 (1890).
The majority makes much of the fact that Major Powell "did not discuss the bed of Utah Lake" in his 1889 letter to the Secretary of the Interior. Ante at 482 U. S. 206-207. It is true that the word "bed" is not found in the brief letter, but the land underlying the lake is clearly denoted by the words "the site of Utah Lake." Major Powell selected as a reservoir site "the site of Utah Lake, . . . together with all lands situate within two statute miles of the border of said lake at high water." (Emphasis added.) Although it may have been the impending settlement of lands adjoining the lake which necessitated expeditious action, nothing in the letter suggested that the bed of the lake was forever unnecessary to the purpose of the reservation.
"the Director of the Geological Survey under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior shall make a report to Congress on the first Monday in December of each year, showing in detail how the [money appropriated for the selection of sites for reservoirs] has been expended, the amount used for actual survey and engineer work in the field in locating sites for reservoires [sic] and an itemized account of the expenditures under this appropriation."
"reject[ed] the assertion that the phrase 'public lands,' in and of itself, has a precise meaning, without reference to a definitional section or its context in a statute."
"the original surveyed meander line on Utah Lake was completed by 1878, except for three small segments approximating a total of ten miles of shoreland . . . which was completed in 1910,"
"Practically all inland bodies of water pass through an annual cycle of changes, between the extremes of which will be found mean high water. . . . The most reliable indication of mean highwater elevation is the evidence made by the water's action at its various stages, which are generally well marked in the soil. . . ."
"Mean highwater elevation is found at the margin of the area occupied by the water for the greater portion of each average year."
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Manual of Instructions for Survey of Public Lands of the United States § 3-116, pp. 94-95 (1973).
"When, by action of water, the bed of the body of water changes, highwater mark changes, and the ownership of adjoining land progresses with it. Lane v. United States, 274 Fed. 290 (1921)."
"Mr. Wilcken. . . . [T]hey have a dam at [Utah] Lake to store water. There has been a little contention with the people in Utah County. The lake has been going down rapidly since 1884; people have crowded upon the land, and the moment we commenced to store water, thereby causing the lake to rise, there was a cry."
"The Chairman. Within the last year, there has been a reservation of any land needed for that purpose, and the Government will survey such land and set it apart; otherwise, will there not be a disposition to crowd upon it and settle it up?"
"Mr. Wilcken. Of course, some of the land has been entered; but whether they have perfected their titles or not, I do not know."
S.Rep. No. 928, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, p. 29 (1890). The Court unfortunately rejects the plain and obvious meaning of the Eleventh Annual Report for a meaning fraught with uncertainty, and I would not assume that Congress did so. The United States has had no opportunity to brief the legal significance of the 1878 meander line, and, even though the majority disavows any intention of deciding property rights, ante at 482 U. S. 205, n., it would be most unfortunate if the majority's unsolicited conclusion with respect to the issue is inconsistent with that of the General Land Office and spawns litigation concerning otherwise established title to the lands bordering Utah Lake.
"[T]he lake is in effect too large to be most effective as a storage reservoir. . . . [T]he efficiency of the lake as a reservoir would be greatly increased if its area could be reduced even to less that [sic] half of its present extent; for, by so doing, in years of scarcity, as those of 1888 and 1889, a large proportion of the water which reaches the lake, instead of being lost by evaporation, would be retained and held for use in canals which cover the land of Salt Lake County. On the other hand, . . . if the lake were only one-half its present area, the floods which come in years of exceptional precipitation would cause a far greater proportional increase of water surface than now takes place, for this water, being thrown into a smaller lake and being able to escape but slowly through the Jordan River, would of necessity encroach upon a far greater proportion of the surrounding lands."
"Thus, while to obtain the maximum amount of water in years of scarcity it would be better if the lake were small, yet to take care of the floods, which will happen at intervals of from five to ten years, it is necessary that the lake have a flood area as large as it now has, or even what it would have at the highest water. From consideration of these points, the segregation of the land around and under the lake was made to a contour line which should be 6 feet above the low-water mark of 1879."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 664
 v. 
 § 3
 v.