Opinion ID: 2610751
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Legal Problem: The Application of Muchenberger and Atwood

Text: Article XV, section 3, of the California Constitution, which became effective in 1879, provides as here relevant: All tidelands within two miles of any incorporated city, city and county, or town in this State, and fronting on the water of any harbor, estuary, bay, or inlet used for the purposes of navigation, shall be withheld from grant or sale to private persons, partnerships, or corporations; ... All of the lands involved in this proceeding lie within the city limits of Long Beach. (1a) The central question in this case, simply stated, is whether chapter 1688 and the two proposed agreements prepared in furtherance of it are in violation of article XV, section 3. [12] (2) Crucial to the determination of this question is the meaning to be attached to the word tidelands in article XV, section 3. Petitioners contend that the word denotes lands which are in fact seaward of the line of mean high tide [13] at the time of the intended conveyance or transfer. Respondents contend that the word denotes lands which were seaward of the mean high tide line when the Alamitos Bay last existed in a state of nature or, at least, when the 1879 Constitution was adopted. We are persuaded that the interpretation urged by respondents is the correct one. The spirited debates which preceded the adoption of article XV, section 3, by the Constitutional Convention manifest clearly that the matter at issue was whether tidelands then remaining in public ownership should suffer the undesirable consequences which had resulted from the prior practice of granting tidelands in a harbor into private, and often monopolistic, ownership. (Debates and Proceedings, California Constitutional Convention 1878-1879, pp. 1038-1039, 1478-1481.) [14] The provision adopted after these debates was clearly designed to insure that similar legislative grants would not occur in the future and that the then-existing public tidelands would remain in public ownership in order to better serve the public interest. It would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of article XV, section 3, to conclude that the word tidelands as used therein denotes only those public lands which retain the physical characteristics of tidelands at the time of proposed alienation, for such a construction would permit parties to remove public tidelands from the reach of the constitutional provision by simply filling so that such lands were no longer covered and uncovered by the flow and ebb of the tide. It is clear that the framers did not intend to establish a prohibition which could be so easily avoided. We therefore conclude that the word tidelands as used in article XV, section 3, denotes lands which were seaward of the mean high tide line when the provision was adopted in 1879. [15] (1b) It does not automatically follow, however, that because the lands here in question fall within the indicated category, chapter 1688 and the two agreements must fall. Several decisions of this court interpreting the constitutional provision remain to be considered. In the case of Muchenberger v. City of Santa Monica (1929) 206 Cal. 635 [275 P. 803], the city, as trustee of state tidelands fronting upon its Pacific Ocean boundary, and the Santa Monica Land Company, which held private lands extending westerly to the mean high tide line, determined to fix the said mean high tide line in order to settle the boundary between their respective lands. This line was arrived at by means of readings taken by the surveyor at stations located 500 feet apart, and checking with other surveys. It was based on the fixed datum plans established by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the line was made straight in an endeavor to attain the average of a mean high-tide line. While the line ... did not exactly coincide with the mean high-tide line as it varied from day to day, the trial court [found] that it [was] a fair average line ... and, as established, it [was] for the best interests of the city that the same `be upheld and maintained.' The mean high-tide line thus located was accepted by the city and by the land company as fixing and making definite and certain the boundary line between the tidelands of the city and the property of the land company, and for the purpose of protecting the city against any claims which might thereafter be made, or which might otherwise be made by the land company or its successors, that it or they had acquired title by accretion to any land which might be subsequently built up.... (206 Cal. at p. 640.) The city and the land company executed an agreement fixing this line and a joint quitclaim deed. Certain taxpayers in the city sought to enjoin this arrangement as violative of article XV, section 3, but this court held that there was no violation. It was not the purpose of the city in this case to transfer any titles, but to mark the boundaries of littoral holdings in order to make them certain and permanent and to prevent questions arising in the future concerning the ownership of lands on either side of the line agreed upon. The purpose and scope of the quitclaim deed plainly appear from the recitals and terms of the instrument. Neither party purports to grant any property or interest to the other. The trial court found that, although an instrument in the form of a quitclaim deed was adopted by the parties, the substance of the transaction was merely an agreement upon an uncertain boundary, and that the deed was made only for the purpose `of fixing and definitely establishing a boundary line which was theretofore uncertain and in doubt and that the said quitclaim deed did not convey any property whatever.' That being the fact, the transaction appears to fall within the language used in Loustalot v. McKeel, 157 Cal. 634, 643 ... where the court said: `They [agreements of this character] do not operate as a conveyance so as to pass title from one to another, but they proceed upon the theory that the true line of separation is in dispute and to some extent unknown, and in such cases the agreement serves to fix the line to which the title of each extends.' (206 Cal. at p. 645.) (3) We reaffirm our holding in Muchenberger, which we summarize as follows: When the boundary between public trust tidelands and private uplands is uncertain, and the parties, wishing to fix the boundary in order to prevent future questions of ownership, undertake genuine efforts to determine the true boundary and thereafter agree to a line which fairly represents these efforts, then the subsequent formal conveyance in the form of a quitclaim deed by the trustee in furtherance of the boundary agreement does not evidence a grant or sale of public tidelands within the meaning of article XV, section 3, of the state Constitution. This principle is wholly consistent with the meaning and purpose of the constitutional provision, for it simply permits the state and its trustee to undertake genuine efforts to determine the extent and true boundaries of public tidelands and to settle such boundaries in fair accordance with the findings resulting from those efforts. (See also City of Los Angeles v. Borax Consolidated Ltd. (9th Cir.1939) 102 F.2d 52, 56-57.) (1c) It is clear that the principle of Muchenberger v. City of Santa Monica operates to render certain portions of the two agreements free from objection on the constitutional ground in question. Thus, it appears that the rationale of Muchenberger is applicable to those portions of the Belmont and McGrath agreements which are true boundary settlements, i.e., which represent genuine efforts on the part of the parties to locate rancho and Bixby patent boundaries in their true positions. An example is that portion of the McGrath agreement which fixes the boundary between state and McGrath lands according to a 1966 state survey. (McGrath agreement, art. 4.) Another example is that portion of the Belmont agreement which disclaims public interest (and therefore in essence fixes a new boundary) with regard to certain section 2(b) lands which were apparently omitted due to inadvertence from the official plat of the original rancho grant. (See text preceding fn. 4.) (Belmont agreement, art. 8.) (4a) Petitioners contend, however, that the principle of Muchenberger should be given a much broader application. Thus, they urge that that principle should operate to remove constitutional objections to the main portion of the Belmont agreement  which essentially quiets title in record owners of all improved lands within the area described in section 2(a) of chapter 1688. The city's quitclaim in this instance, they argue, should be viewed not as a grant or sale in violation of article XV, section 3, but rather as a mechanism by which existing private claims are recognized as valid. It is clear, however, that the suggested application of the Muchenberger principle stretches the rationale of that case far beyond its intended scope and would have the practical effect of reading article XV, section 3, out of the Constitution. The indicated portion of the Belmont agreement certainly does not represent a bona fide effort to establish the true boundary between state and proprietary lands; rather it represents an arrangement whereby the boundary is drawn in such a way as to accommodate the home-owners in question regardless of where the true boundary line might be. It is therefore very difficult indeed to conclude that no grant or sale results as to the bulk of the section 2(a) lands. It is plainly impossible to so conclude as to the lands (8.7 acres) now covering what once was Steamshovel Channel, for these lands are indisputedly public tidelands. Petitioners also contend, on the basis of certain early decisions of this court, that the Legislature has the power to terminate the common law public trust as to tidelands which have ceased to be necessary or useful for purposes of navigation, commerce, and fisheries  and that tidelands so freed from the public trust may be alienated without violation of article XV, section 3. Apparently this argument accepts respondents' contention that tidelands within the meaning of article XV, section 3, are lands which were seaward of mean high tide in 1879 (see text preceding fn. 15, ante ) but urges that such lands can be removed from the crucial category by legislative declaration. (5) An understanding of this argument requires a brief explanation of the common law trust [16] as it relates to questions of alienation. The state's ownership of public tidelands and submerged lands (see Civ. Code, § 670), which it assumed upon admission to the Union, is not of a proprietary nature. Rather, the state holds such lands in trust for public purposes, which have traditionally been delineated in terms of navigation, commerce, and fisheries. The powers of the state as trustee are implied and include everything necessary to the proper administration of the trust in view of its purposes  with certain express reservations such as article XV, section 3. [17] (6) Although these powers include disposal of trust lands in such manner as the interests of navigation, commerce, and fisheries require, tidelands subject to the trust may not be alienated into absolute private ownership; attempted alienation of such tidelands passes only bare legal title, the lands remaining subject to the public easement. [18] However, the state in its proper administration of the trust may find it necessary or advisable to cut off certain tidelands from water access and render them useless for trust purposes. In such a case the state through the Legislature may find and determine that such lands are no longer useful for trust purposes and free them from the trust. When tidelands have been so freed from the trust  and if they are not subject to the constitutional prohibition forbidding alienation  they may be irrevocably conveyed into absolute private ownership. The common law public trust here described is to be distinguished from the constitutional prohibition set forth in article XV, section 3. The former does not of itself forbid the alienation of tidelands but merely insures that when such lands are subject to the trust (i.e., have not been removed therefrom by proper legislative determination), they remain so subject even after alienation. The constitutional provision, on the other hand, flatly forbids alienation of certain tidelands  i.e., tidelands within two miles of an incorporated city  whether or not they are trust lands at the time of alienation. The cases upon which petitioners rely ( Atwood v. Hammond (1935) 4 Cal.2d 31 [48 P.2d 20]; People v. Kerber (1908) 152 Cal. 731 [93 P. 878]; Boone v. Kingsbury (1928) 206 Cal. 148 [273 P. 797]; see also City of Milwaukee v. State (1927) 193 Wis. 423 [214 N.W. 820, 54 A.L.R. 419]) indicate that this distinction can be made to yield in some circumstances. Thus, in Atwood v. Hammond, supra, 4 Cal.2d 31, the defendant city and county proposed to establish a civic center upon tidelands which had been conveyed to it for that purpose by the state. Plaintiff taxpayers contended that such a use was not permissible because the subject tract was part of a larger tract previously conveyed to the city subject to the public trust for navigation, commerce, and fisheries. This court held that the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained without leave to amend. We pointed out that a prior grant to the city for trust purposes was made upon condition that the city undertake harbor improvements on the granted property, and that in the course of making such improvements dredging occurred and the subject tract was filled with the resulting sand and debris, and a bulkhead was erected. Subsequent grants made after the subject tract had been reclaimed (1) declared that the tract had ceased to be tidelands and was free from the trusts and restrictions imposed by the prior grant and (2) conveyed the reclaimed land to the city for municipal purposes including that of a civic center. We held that, whereas the reclamation itself did not ipso facto terminate the public trust for navigation and commerce ..., nevertheless it was competent for the state by legislative action [i.e., the subsequent grant] to terminate the public trust as to the eighteen-acre parcel, which constitutes but a small part of the area granted to the city. (4 Cal.2d at p. 41.) After this conclusion that it was permissible for the state to terminate the common law trust as to the reclaimed parcel, we turned to a consideration of the effect of constitutional provisions. We first pointed out that there has been no attempt to alienate the eighteen-acre parcel which is the subject of this action from public ownership, but, rather, an effort to require that it be used only for purposes not connected directly with navigation or commerce, that is, for county and municipal buildings. (4 Cal.2d at p. 42.) This fact, however, did not render relevant constitutional provisions wholly unworthy of consideration. [I]n view of the manifest purpose of sections 2[ [19] ] and 3, article XV, the prohibition against alienation necessarily implies a prohibition against freeing such tidelands from the trust for navigation and dedicating them to other uses while they remain tidelands. But said section cannot be interpreted to forbid the reclamation of lands which may be filled in as the result of a highly beneficial program of harbor development. It applies to tidelands, that is, to lands covered and uncovered by the flow and ebb of the tides, and, it has been held, to lands which are continuously submerged. It does not in terms apply to lands which, through reclamation, are no longer covered and uncovered by the tides, and have ceased to be tidelands. We are of the view that it was competent for the legislature upon finding that the eighteen-acre tract was `not longer required for navigation, commerce or fisheries,' to free it from the public easement for those purposes. (4 Cal.2d at pp. 42-43.) Finally, we emphasized that only a small portion of the original trust grant was being freed from the public trust. Plaintiff does not allege what proportion of the total area lying shoreward of the bulkhead line or seawall this eighteen-acre parcel constitutes. But the inference is that it is only a very small part of the total acreage.... We cannot interfere with the legislature's decision that the public easement may be abrogated as to this relatively small parcel. (4 Cal.2d at p. 43.) The parties are in substantial dispute as to the meaning and application of this case. As indicated above, petitioners find support therein for their contention that the prohibition of article XV, section 3, is inapplicable to tidelands which have been reclaimed as the result of a highly beneficial program of harbor development (4 Cal.2d at p. 42) and have been declared by the Legislature to be no longer subject to the common law trust. Respondents, on the other hand, point out that the lands in Atwood were granted to a public rather than a private grantee so that, as the court recognized, the constitutional provisions were strictly inapplicable for that reason. Thus, respondents argue, any support to be found for petitioners' position in the court's language must rest upon mere dictum. However the language in Atwood may be characterized in terms of its value as precedent, we think that it represents a clear statement of this court that article XV, section 3, does not forbid alienation of lands within two miles of an incorporated city which have been reclaimed as the result of a highly beneficial program of harbor development, are relatively small in area, and have been freed of the public trust by legislative act. One persuasive reason for this conclusion is that the court in Atwood, prior to the language above quoted, discussed and cited a number of cases involving public harbor development which entailed the granting of lands reclaimed in the course of development into private ownership. [20] Although these cases do not concern themselves with the application of article XV, section 3  that provision not being in existence at the time of the transfers there in question  the material which we have quoted proceeds in light of those cases and clearly indicates that article XV, section 3, would not have forbidden those transfers. Secondly, we consider that the principle of the Atwood case is wholly consistent with the purposes of the framers of the Constitution. The debates at the Constitutional Convention, to which we have adverted above, reveal a general intention to retain tidelands within two miles of incorporated cities in order that such tidelands might be utilized in the public interest for navigational and related purposes rather than in the interest of private persons to whom they might be granted. Surely if in the course of, and for the purpose of carrying out, a comprehensive public program of harbor development certain portions of tidelands are filled under circumstances clearly showing that, in the light of the relatively minor area involved and the manner of reclamation in relation to the program as a whole, such reclamation is merely a reasonably necessary incident of the program and of the promotion of its public objective, and if thereafter such filled areas are declared by the Legislature to be of no value for navigational and related purposes, then we think that a sale and transfer into private ownership of such filled-in areas might be found to be entirely consistent with the intention and objective of the framers of the Constitution. But we emphasize that the circumstances under which this may occur are of necessity unique, that the conditions sanctioning its approval must be scrupulously observed and satisfied, and that generally speaking the reclaimed area alleged to be free from both the public trust and the constitutional restriction against alienation into private ownership must be, as it were, a residual product of the larger program  a relatively small parcel to use the language of Atwood (4 Cal.2d at p. 43)  determined by the Legislature to have no further value for the purposes of the public easement. (7) To reiterate, we conclude that when lands within two miles of an incorporated city or town which were subject to the ebb and flow of the tide at the date of the adoption of the Constitution  and which therefore are tidelands within the meaning of article XV, section 3  (1) have been found and determined by the Legislature to be valueless for trust purposes and are freed from the public trust (see fn. 17, ante ) and (2) have been or are to be reclaimed pursuant to and in the course of a highly beneficial public program of harbor development, such lands  if they constitute a relatively small parcel of the total acreage involved  thereupon cease to be tidelands within the meaning of the constitutional provision and are subject to alienation into absolute private ownership. [21] It remains that we determine the application of this principle to the case before us. (4b) It is clear, we think, that those portions of the McGrath agreement which contemplate the exchange of certain reclaimed public tidelands for other lands owned by the McGrath trust are consistent with the principle we have enunciated. The public lands in question were reclaimed in the course of that public program of harbor development which resulted in the creation of Marine Stadium. Those lands are relatively minor in area (5 acres) and have been declared in chapter 1688 to be no longer necessary or useful for commerce, fisheries and navigation. Moreover the exchange itself is sought to be made in furtherance of an existing and ongoing program of harbor development. The situation is otherwise, however, with regard to the settled and subdivided lands described in section 2(a) of chapter 1688 which are the primary concern of the Belmont agreement. As we have indicated above, the filling of these lands by private developers began at about the turn of the century and was substantially completed when the Alamitos Bay area was annexed to the city in 1923. This filling proceeded in a rather haphazard manner, without significant regard for the uncertain boundaries in the area, and in one case  that of Steamshovel Channel (see text accompanying fn. 7, ante )  filling was undertaken upon lands whose public character was clear. It is manifest that the filling in question was not undertaken pursuant to and as an integral part of a public program of harbor development. Moreover, the contemplated disclaimer of public interest and quitclaim in favor of private parties is in no way related to the present public program of harbor development in the Alamitos Bay area. For these reasons it is apparent that the principle we have distilled from Atwood v. Hammond, supra, 4 Cal.2d 31, and related cases is not applicable to the section 2(a) lands dealt with in the Belmont agreement. It must therefore be concluded that those lands, to the extent they are in fact public tidelands within the meaning of article XV, section 3, of the California Constitution, have not been withdrawn from that category by proper legislative action and remain subject to the prohibition against alienation contained in that section.