United States vs The State of California
Interesting boundary description
What about all of the other States
I suppose there must be something similar for every other State along a coast line.
Think how long the description is to work all the way around Alaska.
4. Plane coordinates refer to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). All coordinates are referenced to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83), which is equivalent to the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84).
5. Pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1301(b), upon entry of this decree, the federal-state boundary shall be immobilized at the coordinates provided in paragraph 3 and shall not be ambulatory.
But California is moving? We don't have immobile coordinates.
It never occurred to me that a decision of the court or an act of congress could prevent continental drift!
The San Andreas Fault is hereby ordered to STOP already Dagnabit!!!
So Ordered...
/s/ John Roberts, C.J.
Not a "new" boundary
Yesterday’s ruling identifies the 1947 boundary line “with greater particularity.”
There is a similar boundary in the Gulf of Mexico as well (except FL) for leasing purposes.
That is one p***-poor description!
The issue I have with that is what epoch? They simply say "NAD83 which is equivalent to WGS84". That may have been true (sort of) with the original NAD83 86 (to ±1 m or so). If they are going to list coordinates to the mm, then I think it important to specify an epoch, especially in California, where NAD is dynamic.
I am surprised they didn't list the coordinates to a meter.
reading comprehension?
the numbers are fine, they just forgot to say how far it is from the coastline
Monuments, dammit. I want to see monuments! A pile of sea lion poop is inadequate for a monument.
What about all of the other States
> I suppose there must be something similar for every other State along a coast line.
> Think how long the description is to work all the way around Alaska.
I highly doubt that there is a detailed description of the coastline of Alaska. I suppose they could have an automated software derived version...
So was there a surveyor involved, or is it all GIS?
I don't think there is a WGS84 version of state plane, so I'd interpret the results as NAD83. Which epoch is indeed a valid question.
> Monuments, dammit. I want to see monuments! A pile of sea lion poop is inadequate for a monument.
There is One Humongous Monument cited in the preamble, the California Coastline... they just forgot to say how far the offset is from "parallel to the coastline mainland california", but I suppose that can be derived from the pleadings.
🙂
Not state plane, UTM. The military uses UTM all the time with WGS84. UTM is not datum dependent (i.e. it will work with any datum), but the datum must be specified. It was designed as a worldwide system.
State plane will also work with any datum, but most states specify NAD83 as the "official" datum for SPC.
I still say it needs an epoch. And a statement saying the intent, for example it is supposed to be X miles offshore, parallel to the coast.
What about all of the other States
Actually there is, at least in a number of areas where oil and gas leasing is involved. Over a decade ago I participated in a helicopter survey of the entire Bristol Bay coast line from Dillingham to Cold Bay along with the Mineral Management Services. We flew the entire shoreline over two weeks during a narrow window when the tides were within 2' +/- of MHW using differentially corrected resource grade GPS, mapping the shoreline and all visible offshore salient points. I had my receiver and the Feds had theirs. In the end our data matched to within a meter. I got to spend roughly four months going cross eyed computing up areas and drafting up the leasing diagrams of the 3 nautical mile offshore boundary in relationship to the protracted sections. I think it covered something like 74 townships in all. The field work was probably the most insanely fun time I've ever had surveying and the office end the most mind numbingly boring.
A little footnote about the leasing diagrams. On each of those 74 leasing diagrams, I drafted in a little scene reminiscent of our survey. One diagram had a little walrus on the boundary, another a herd of caribou, salmon, gill netter, grizzly and so on. It was so dry I had to make my mark on it somewhere. I thought my boss was going to make me remove them but turned out he loved it!
:good:
I also wonder why they would even use coordinates at all honestly. Yes it is sexy math, but what happens when the mathematical we currently uses changes to something else newer and improved. All of those calls for coordinates are useless.
The use of coordinates is simply a tool to facilitate the computation of areas in relation to tract boundaries. Say you have an arc representing the offshore boundary as defined by a salient point and that arc bisects a defined tract. Part of the tract is in State ownership, part is in Federal. It's critical for leasing purposes that those areas be defined and agreed upon so that all of the area of the tract is accounted for when leased. Once that has been agreed upon between the State and Feds, any changes to the math or technology are academic. They are going to refer back to the agreed upon boundary and areas. It's all about royalties ($). Who gets what cut of those resources.
I think coordinates is a good idea. With a GPS you can then tell what side of the boundary you are on. Just needs a little METADATA
is really that important to define a line to the meter when you're 3 miles off shore? It's my feeling that if they are quibbling about a meter, or two or even ten meters 3 miles offshore then there is really a bigger problem, it's not the coordinate data.
Nothing New. Good Enough Description
There is nothing "new" to this, nothing ambiguous, and no practical way to describe it with reference to higher orders of evidence.
It is already a matter of law that the California Offshore Boundary is 3 nautical miles from the MLLW of the California coastline. These coordinates have existed since at least 1997 when published by the US DOI, Minerals Management Services and have been used by any agency with an interest in the boundary location. It was developed from parameters described in the Submerged Lands Act and as refined by the previous SCOTUS cases cited in this particular ruling.
The only thing that is "new" is that SCOTUS fixed the boundary at these coordinates.
As to the description itself, which would allow a more definite re-establishment (or re-determination) of any particular coordinate position, a set of coordinates, or an 18078' tie from the nearest offset reference monument?
This ruling does nothing to upset the relative importance of boundary evidence that we've all known and as has been developed in common law over hundreds of years.
Neither California State Lands nor any Federal agency is likely to set monuments on the actual boundary, several hundred or several thousand feet below the water surface.
It is far different from the typical boundary that any surveyor would deal with, and it's primary, and perhaps only value is jurisdictional.
The questions that will be answered relative to it are "Is the location of this oil/mineral extraction work within the 3-mile limit or not?", and "Is this oil/mineral deposit located within the 3-mile limit or not?". The answer determines which level of government gets the rents and royalties. The other question might be "Was this crime committed within the 3-mile limit or not?" to determine whether it falls under Federal or State prosecutorial jurisdiction.
Our land boundaries and our understanding of land boundary evidence is safe, at least relative to this ruling, as it has no effect on those concepts.
As far as I know, contrary to the headline by The Verge, SCOTUS has not changed the boundary by this ruling, only declared it fixed along a set of courses that have been used for nearly 20 years anyway. The one thing that has changed is ready and immediate access to SCOTUS rulings and decrees by "journalists" who have no understanding of the subject matter via the internet.
At least in the past, the "journalists" had a built in lag time between obtaining information and being able to publish it, which allowed them an opportunity to use their heads and seek out someone to explain the subject matter to them. In this instance, someone who understands what the offshore boundary is, how it's used, and how it's been defined could have told them "nothing to see here", and the "journalist" could have saved his or her print space for a story about the First Lady having a secret affair with an alien galactic explorer/conquistador from a nearby galaxy. Unfortunately, the internet allows nonsensical "news" stories to be widely disseminated as fast as, and as soon as the "journalist" can type the final period and hit 'send'. Who needs an expert to explain it? It's so much more interesting to presume and proclaim an "activist" ruling. A story like that gets much more interesting feedback.
