Document: 394 U.S. 89 S.Ct. 761 22 L.Ed.2d 99 UTAHv.UNITED STATES. No. 31, Orig. March 3, 1969. Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen. of Utah, Robert Hansen, Deputy Gen., and Dallin W. Jensen, Asst. for plaintiff. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney Martz, Louis F. Claiborne, David R. Warner Martin Green, the United States. L. M. McBride, Frank A. Wollaeger, Myer Feldman Jacobs, Morton International, Inc. George E. Boss, Raymond T. Senior, Claron C. Spencer D. Larsen, Great Salt Lake Minerals & Chemicals Corp. PER CURIAM We are called upon to deal with exceptions filed by Inc., which protests decision our Special Master, Senior Circuit Judge J. Cullen Ganey, denying it leave intervene as a party defendant in this original action. While we affirm Master's decision, do so reasons somewhat different from those advanced Report. Consequently, will be necessary describe nature underlying controversy before basis disposition matter become clear. This case arises out long-standing dispute between States Utah over ownership Lake. The importance difficulty is magnified fact that, course years, lake has proceeded shrink size, laying bare some 600,000 acres land had formerly been part lakebed (the so-called 'relicted' lands). In 1966, Congress moved resolve passing special Act, 80 Stat. 192, amended, 349, both authorized Secretary Interior issue quitclaim deed State entire federal interest properties provided mechanism fair value could ascertained. consideration Secretary's deed, was obliged either pay Federal Government an amount fixed or bring lawsuit Court that extent claim judicially determined. States, however, not alone advancing claims still submerged non-relicted portions lake. also property, seeks quiet its title. Our Report carefully sets competing two sovereigns private landlord: '1. on January 4, 1896, date admitted Union, navigable body water. On 'equal footing doctrine,' asserts owner Lake's bed delineated determined official surveyed meander line (some acres) left exposed recession water's edge line, known 'public domain reliction,' bed. * '2. claims, excluding lands lakeward upland1 transferred patentees, title substantial portion 325,574 (known reliction' lands) claimed uplands reason entitled under common-law doctrine reliction.2 '3. Private vendees paten ees whose can traced all fronting such uplands. Their stop at but continue thread They contend patents impliedly passed relicted adjoining combined area group amounts approximately 275,000 acres. good example one group. '4. addition, patentees (or claiming through them) Basart doctrine. total 108,780 acres, referred reliction Basart.' These owners (including Morton), course, disagree applicable these lands.' 6—8. Master found raised 'main action have question law common' consequently, 'a district judge would exercise his discretion permit (Morton) action.' 39. refused take step only because he waived sovereign immunity Morton's suit. Upon careful consideration, find reach ground adopted For concluded Stipulation entered into presented limited issues presence similar property neither nor appropriate. Hence, discretion, interests justice sound judicial administration best served if motion denied. 1 entry significantly changes problem us. If never filed, clear attempted defeat proving landlords like them. situation, right basis. sought invoke avoid payment seem fairest speak itself. makes clear, attempt States' landowners acreage. other words, does prove owns properties, agreed regardless clouds claim. 2 side, taken steps remove means Stipulation. It demand finds disputed acreage no merit. unnecessary consider whether order determine must deed. Thus, valid, need longer exists. 3 Morton, attacks validity sovereigns.3 deny parties ordinary may limit they tender points lawsuit, defined Act Congress, supra, litigation. argues transformed suit way contrary Congress' intention, consequently should accept parties' narrow issues. 4 cannot, premise argument based. transform disapproved. structure relevant indicates decisively did anticipate necessarily lead adjudication lands. Section 5 gave money after given 'consideration factors deems pertinent equitable resolution proper paid *.' option, opportunity jurisdiction since complaint. difficult believe frustrated tendered structured their without considering additional parties.4 Similarly, any merit challenge promised vindicated. authority give away potentially valuable when expressly required Nation receive value. But ignores indicated brief believes advance colorable conceivably vindicate Government's upheld. being so, General, acting broad conduct litigation Court, 28 U.S.C. § 518 (1964) ed., Supp. III), surely case. 6 Finally, Rule 19(a) Rules Civil Procedure permitted absence 'leave (one) persons already subject risk incurring double, multiple, otherwise inconsistent obligations interest.' contends present action, another later title, requiring again wishes control favored intervene, despite company's here mean ultimately second time. Indeed, consistently opposed motion. Since guide actions 'where application appropriate,' 9(2) orig nal invoked sparingly, hold properly waive protection 19 here.5 7 perceive compelling there intervention. admitted, fairness require admission 120 who wish lands, greatly increasing complexity Moreover, landlord citizen seek decide constitutional retain complete diversity citizenship exists contesting parties. 8 With Stipulation, find, relied represent doubtless us settle decline intervention sole purpose permitting introduce new directly concerned. thus constrained company forum may, greater efficiency, hear together defenses concerned interpose. 9 agree 'it conscience proceed adjudicate absence, 47, hereby authorize him merits. 10 placed file determination morton approved.6 ordered. 11 Denial approved. 12 Mr. Justice MARSHALL took Uplands lots above adjacent line. (This Ganey's footnote. footnotes omitted.) advances claim, detailed certain well brines minerals defer them owned lake, lake's minerals, ruled contest State's resources Neither contested aspect ruling. contains proviso declares 'the provisions shall affect (1) valid existing rights interests, any, person, partnership, association, corporation, nongovernmental entity, within below said (Emphasis supplied.) language suggests expected adjudicated here. conditions protects courts. Before Chemical denied Morton's, M&C chosen acquiesce long further light

Category: 9