Okay. I see what you're saying.
The 3-nm state ownership of and jurisdiction over its waters are entirely normal
per the Submerged Lands Act. The wildlife refuge (mostly on land but also
encompassing some tidal areas) is federal property (and therefore subject to
federal management) within the state's jurisdiction. All that makes this
situation unusual is that the coast-length of the refuge, and the resultant
narrowness in proportion to their width of the state-owned waters. Other than
that, the legal situation is identical to that at many other places where
federal property comes down to the shore. Even where the exclusive federal
jurisdiction over land military bases reaches the shore, state ownership of and
jurisdiction over waters beyond continue undisturbed.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] ha alaska claiming 150mile proruption of 3nm state
waters
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=84ORIG
> for further background
>
> & here the claim or title is being proclaimed publicly
> by the governor of the state today
>
> the proruption is the narrow generally 3nm band of
> alaska waters that are sandwiched between the federal
> wildlife refuge & the federal territorial sea
>
> you may prefer to think of it as a partial proruption
> since the federal wildlife refuge is still in alaska
> but in terms of the oil development that is being
> described
> it is a real proruption
>
> & at about 50 to 1
> it appears to have the greatest length to width ratio
> of any proruption of any kind that i can think of
> anywhere on the planet
> tho i hope someone will have some fun beating it
>
> --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
>
>> Why is this a "claim" and a "proruption"? It's the
>> normal 3-nm fringe of state
>> waters that almost all states have. The fact that
>> the land on-shore is
>> federally owned does not affect ownership of the
>> adjoining state waters. I
>> don't think that the feds deny for a moment Alaska's
>> ownership of those waters.
>>
>> Lowell G. McManus
>> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
>> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:09 AM
>> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] ha alaska claiming 150mile
>> proruption of 3nm state
>> waters
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>>
> http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2725762,00.html
>> > http://www.kaktovik.com/anwr_map.jpg
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________
>> > Do you Yahoo!?
>> > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
>> > http://my.yahoo.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>