Opinion ID: 57442
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Rights

Text: Plaintiffs argue that they have a federal right to fish on the Property when it is covered by the Mississippi River’s waters because the Mississippi River is a navigable waterway of the United States. They contend that a federal navigational servitude burdens the Property, creating a public right to fish there. Plaintiffs also assert that there is a corresponding federal common law right to fish on the navigable waters of the United States. In response, Sheriff Shumate argues that: (1) the Property is not burdened by any federal easements because the Property is not a navigable waterway in fact; (2) the federal navigational servitude does not create a right to fish; and (3) there is no federal common law affecting riparian land owners’ property interests. It is well established that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution gives the federal government a “dominant servitude” over the 11 No. 06-31045 navigable waters of the United States. United States v. Cherokee Nat. of Okla., 480 U.S. 700, 704 (1987) (citation omitted). The so-called navigational servitude extends “laterally to the entire water surface and bed of a navigable waterway, which includes all the land and waters below the ordinary high water mark.” 33 C.F.R. § 329.11(a); see also United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121, 123 (1967). A river’s ordinary high water mark is set at “the line of the shore established by the fluctuations of water . . . .” 33 C.F.R. § 329.11(a)(1). It is ascertained by “physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; . . . changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; . . . or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Id. The navigational servitude does not burden land that is only submerged when the river floods. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606, 632 (1923); United States v. Harrell, 926 F.2d 1036, 1041-43 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Claridge, 416 F.2d 933, 934 (9th Cir. 1970).4 As implied by its very name and the constitutional provision from which it arises, the federal navigational servitude is concerned with navigational rights and commerce. See United States v. Montana, 450 U.S. 544, 551 (1981) (“The State’s power over the beds of navigable waters remains subject to only one 4 Plaintiffs argue that the Property is below the high water mark based on the Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s finding that the high water mark is one hundred and twelve feet above mean sea level (the high water mark during the spring flooding season). The explanation for the Louisiana court’s conclusion is that Louisiana has rejected the federal definition of high water mark and relies, instead, on the ordinary seasonal flood levels. DeSambourg v. Bd. of Comm’rs for the Grand Prairie Levee Dist., 621 So.2d 602, 612 (La. 1993). Unfortunately, neither party submitted sufficient summary judgment evidence to determine where the federal high water mark lies, although it is unlikely that it includes much of the Property. See Harrell, 926 F.2d at 1043 (“To argue that the government’s jurisdiction should extend laterally as much as three miles on either side of the Tombigbee river is ludicrous.”). 12 No. 06-31045 limitation: the paramount power of the United States to ensure that such waters remain free to interstate and foreign commerce.”); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 177 (1979) (“The navigational servitude . . . gives rise to an authority in the Government to assure that such streams retain their capacity to serve as continuous highways for the purpose of navigation in interstate commerce.”); United States v. Chi. M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 596 (1941) (“[T]he rights of the title holder are subordinate to the dominant power of the federal Government in respect of navigation.”) (citing Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269, 272 (1897)). Neither navigation nor commerce encompass recreational fishing. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469, 482-84 (1988) (noting that fishing is not related to navigability); George v. Beavark, Inc., 402 F.2d 977, 981 (8th Cir. 1968) (“Although the rule on navigability has been at times liberalized, to our knowledge none of the authoritative cases has liberalized the rule so as to indicate that mere pleasure fishing on a stream of water is such usage as would constitute navigability.”). Accordingly, the navigational servitude does not create a right to fish on private riparian land. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claim to a federal right ignores “the ‘general proposition [that] the law of real property is, under our Constitution, left to the individual States to develop and administer.’” Phillips Petroleum, 484 U.S. at 484 (citation omitted). Louisiana took title to all lands below navigable waters in its boundaries when it was admitted to the Union. Dardar, 985 F.2d 824, 82627 (citation omitted); see also Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702, 714 (1973); Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 10 (1971); Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 230 (1845). It has broad authority to regulate public trust lands, including the 13 No. 06-31045 Property, as it sees fit. See Phillips Petroleum, 484 U.S. at 482-84. Louisiana may regulate or prohibit the use of land held in public trust. See McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391, 395 (1876) (upholding a state statute that prohibited nonstate citizens from planting oysters in tidal lands); Smith v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 71, 74-75 (1855) (upholding a state statute that prohibited a federally licensed ship from dredging for oysters in the Chesapeake Bay). It may “retain[] for the general public the right to fish, hunt, or bathe on these lands.” Phillips Petroleum, 484 U.S. at 482-84. Or, as it did here, it may relinquish title to a private landowner. Id. at 483; see also Dardar, 985 F.2d at 830 (stating that Louisiana may relinquish lands that are periodically overflown by the waters of the Mississippi). In any event, as things now stand, the right to fish on public trust lands is governed by Louisiana law, and there is no reason for us to displace that law by adopting a federal rule of decision in this context.5 See Wallis v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 384 U.S. 63, 68 (1966) (stating that it is for Congress to decide whether latent federal power should be exercised to displace state law).