We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The United States condemned tide and submerged lands leased by
the Port of San Diego to the U.S. Navy. The Port held the lands
under a trust grant from the State of California, and therefore
defending the state's sovereign interest in the lands was the
responsibility of the California State Lands Commission
("Commission"). The complaint in the eminent domain
action explicitly listed "any tidelands trust rights of the
State of California" as part of the estate to be taken. The
Commission did not dispute the federal government's power to
condemn the land. The issue was whether the state's public
trust rights are extinguishable by the power of eminent domain or
whether they will "re-emerge" if the United States
conveys the property to a private party. The Ninth Circuit
unanimously upheld the district court's decision, holding that
neither the equal-footing doctrine nor the public trust doctrine
prevents the federal government from fully extinguishing
California's public trust interest in the land through eminent
domain.
Equal-Footing Doctrine
According to the Ninth Circuit, the equal-footing doctrine
granted states full rights over their tide and submerged lands upon
entering the Union,1 but once the initial land rights
were granted, the force of the doctrine was spent. Thus, the
equal-footing doctrine prevents the United States from giving away
after statehood state lands subject to the public trust to third
parties since those lands had previously been granted to states and
the federal government had no title. However, the doctrine does not
prevent the United States from using the power of eminent domain to
take the land from the states thereafter. The court acknowledged
there was a strong presumption against defeating through
conveyances to third parties a state's title to state lands
acquired at statehood, which would be possible after condemnation.
The court also acknowledged that, as a policy matter, the United
States had refrained from granting tide and submerged lands to
third parties absent exceptional circumstances. However, the court
held this was a policy choice by Congress, not a limitation on
Congress's power imposed by the equal footing doctrine.
Public Trust Doctrine
Because the public trust doctrine is a matter of state law, the
court reasoned that allowing the Commission's interest to
survive the federal government's eminent domain action would
"subjugate the federal government's eminent domain power
to California's state law" and run afoul of the Supremacy
Clause. The court also rejected the Commission's proposal for
the trust to become "quiescent" and then
"re-emerge" when the United States transferred it to a
third party. The court held that it is "irrelevant"
whether the federal government could achieve its objective by
taking a lesser interest in the land since using its power of
eminent domain fully extinguishes the state's public trust
interest in the land.
In sum, the Ninth Circuit held that the power eminent domain
grants the federal government a new title unencumbered by a
state's public trust interest, regardless of whether it later
conveys the land to a third party. The court states that
"[h]aving paid just compensation, the United States is
entitled to the interest it sought in its complaint in
condemnation: full fee simple, free of California's public
trust." Neither the equal-footing doctrine nor the public
trust doctrine "prevents the federal government from taking
that interest in the land unencumbered."
Footnote
1 It is well-settled under California law that
these lands are held by the State of California subject to the
public trust for commerce, navigation and fishery, which limits
both the alienability of these lands and the uses to which they can
be put. See Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146
U.S. 387 (1892); People v. California Fish Co., 138 P. 79 (Cal.
1913); Marks v. Whitney, 491 P.2d 790 (Cal. 1971); National Audubon
Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal.
1983).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Office of Counsel, Advisory Opinion Unit recently issued an opinion concerning the application of sales tax.
The Georgia Real Estate Appraisers Board recently adopted its final regulations regarding standards for developing and reporting an "evaluation appraisal."
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a property owner in Mississippi agreed to pay $27,000 to settle a lawsuit involving allegations of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Just yesterday, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issues new guidance which reaffirms that the Fair Housing Act’s (FHA’s) requirement that multifamily housing be designed and constructed so as to be accessible to persons with disabilities.
One of the communities hardest hit by Hurricane Sandy is preparing to use eminent domain to take easements from oceanfront homeowners who are holding up a beach replenishment project, according to the Newark Star-Ledger.
