[House Report 106-304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-304

======================================================================



 
GRANTING THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE BOUNDARY CHANGE BETWEEN GEORGIA 
                           AND SOUTH CAROLINA

                                _______


 September 8, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Gekas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H.J. Res. 62]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 62) granting the consent of 
Congress to the boundary change between Georgia and South 
Carolina, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommends that the joint resolution do 
pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
Purpose and Summary........................................           1
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           2
Hearings...................................................           4
Committee Consideration....................................           4
Committee Oversight Findings...............................           4
Committee on Government Reform Findings....................           4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................           4
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................           5
Section-by-Section Analysis................................           5

                          Purpose and Summary

    House Joint Resolution 62 grants the consent of Congress to 
an interstate compact establishing a portion of the boundary 
between
Georgia and South Carolina along the Savannah River. The 
resolution also gives the states broad discretion to come up 
with a final, binding technical description of that resolved 
boundary line.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    As `` `most [state] boundaries are just a series of words 
on a piece of paper,' '' \1\ they are often the subject of 
legal disputes. While the Supreme Court has original 
jurisdiction over such disputes,\2\ interstate compacts have 
long been used as an alternative instrument to resolve border 
disputes between states.\3\ Since boundary changes affect the 
political power and influence of the states, they require 
Congressional consent under art. I, Sec.  10, cl. 3 of the 
Constitution.\4\ Once the boundary line of a state is set, 
however, either by compact or otherwise, Congress is without 
power to change the line without that state's consent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Eric Johnson, Border Disputes Linger in Many States: Families 
Have Lost Land Under Taxation Conflicts, The Dallas Morning News, April 
17, 1993, at 41A (quoting Stephen Pousardien, a map expert with the 
United States Geological Survey).
    \2\ U.S. Const. art. III, Sec.  2, cl. 1.
    \3\ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Compact Clause of 
the Constitution--A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale L. J. 685, 
696 (1925). See also William Kevin Voit, Interstate Compacts & Agencies 
19 (1998) (listing 25 interstate boundary compacts).
    \4\ Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 518, 520 (1893).
    \5\ New Mexico v. Colorado, 267 U.S. 30, 41 (1925); Louisiana v. 
Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 41 (1906).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 28, 1787, Georgia and South Carolina--through duly 
appointed commissioners--entered into the Beaufort Convention 
pursuant to the then valid Articles of Confederation of 
1778.\6\ The Convention set the boundary between the states at 
the centerline of the Savannah River, except where there are 
islands in the river, in which case the boundary was set to the 
centerline between the islands, which were part of Georgia, and 
the South Carolina riverbank.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See Georgia v. South Carolina, 257 U.S. 516, 518-19 (1922).
    \7\ Id. at 517-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over time, however, the states disagreed on whether the 
centerline should be measured at the low-water mark or at the 
ordinary level.\8\ The Supreme Court, in 1922, decided that the 
proper measurement was at the ordinary water level.\9\ 
Nonetheless, the boundary line was the subject of protracted 
debate as new islands emerged in the river, the Army Corps of 
Engineers dredged certain parts of the river, South Carolina 
claimed adverse possession over a set of islands in the river, 
and the states disputed the boundary at the mouth of the river 
on the Atlantic Ocean.\10\ The issue gained prominence as the 
disputed land became critical to expanding the Port of 
Savannah, and as the potential of offshore oil reserves 
arose.\11\ At one point, South Carolina refused to ``extradite 
to Georgia a . . . South Carolina shrimp-boat captain who had 
been accused of shrimping illegally in the waters claimed by 
Georgia. . . . [and] who insisted he had never left South 
Carolina waters.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. at 521.
    \10\ See generally Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (1990).
    \11\ Regional News, United Press International Newswire, March 23, 
1986, available in Lexis, Nexis library, UPI File.
    \12\ War Between the States, The Economist, August 27, 1977, at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled, inter alia, that 
Georgia lost sovereignty over certain islands to South Carolina 
by the doctrine of ``prescription and acquiescence,'' the 
emergence of new islands in the river did not move the 
boundary, and the Army Corps' operations were instances of 
avulsion that did not move the boundary.\13\ The Court directed 
the states to draw the boundary in accordance with its opinion 
and to submit the boundary to the Court for final approval.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (1990).
    \14\ Id. at 409-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The states enlisted the help of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to update and make usable the 
1855 map used by the Supreme Court in its decision.\15\ When 
NOAA completed its work, the states realized that the course of 
the Savannah River had changed so much since 1855 that they 
would have to negotiate a different line.\16\ Therefore, the 
two states worked together, pursuant to the Supreme Court's 
direction, to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.\17\ That 
solution covers about 3,000 acres of land.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 145 Cong. Rec. S8271 (daily ed. July 12, 1999) (statement of 
Sen. Coverdell).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Regional News, supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In translating that new, mutually agreed-upon boundary into 
law, however, Georgia used a legal description which was less 
technically precise and accurate than that utilized by South 
Carolina.\19\ Therefore, the versions passed by the states and 
referenced in H.J. Res. 62 are not currently identical. 
Nonetheless, Georgia's law did provide that its textual 
description could be superceded by a map to be prepared by NOAA 
and paid for by the two states.\20\ If such a map is produced 
and it is identical to South Carolina's textual description, 
then the two states will have an identical agreement and 
Congress, under H.J. Res. 62, will have consented to the 
boundary. If, however, NOAA does not produce such a map or the 
map is not sufficiently clear or identical to bind the states, 
H.J. Res. 62 gives the states consent in advance to adopt each 
other's language or come up with new language to settle their 
long-standing boundary dispute within five years of 
enactment.\21\ As interstate compacts are generally interpreted 
like contracts, they are not binding unless there is both an 
offer and acceptance, and the use of two different texts may--
depending on the differences--be construed instead as an offer 
and a counteroffer.\22\ Therefore, under H.J. Res. 62, the 
Compact will not legally bind the states until NOAA produces 
the requisite map or the states adopt identical language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Act of May 29, 1996, 1996 S.C. Acts 375; Act of April 5, 1994, 
1994 Ga. Laws 1044. For example, the Georgia law uses a different 
system of coordinates to describe the boundary line. In addition, it 
does not specify whether degree measurements should be ``true'' or 
``magnetic''. Georgia, in a letter to Speaker Hastert and Vice 
President Gore, has acknowledged that South Carolina's description is 
more appropriate. Letter from J. Ray Crawford, Special Designee of the 
Governor and Executive Director, State Properties Commission, to Hon. 
Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Hon. 
Albert Gore, Jr., President of the Senate 1 (undated) (on file with the 
Committee).
    \20\ Id. However, NOAA does not, as a matter of policy, place 
interstate boundary lines on its maps unless directed to do so by the 
Congress or the courts. Furthermore, NOAA does not recommend the use of 
a graphical depiction as a legal definition for a state water, due to 
accuracy issues. Testimony of Charles Challstrom before the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (visited July 30, 
1999) .
    \21\ Congress has the power to consent to interstate compacts in 
advance of their actual existence. Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 441 & 
n. 9 (1981). See also Frederick L. Zimmerman & Mitchell Wendell, The 
Law and Use of Interstate Compacts 25 (1976).
    \22\ Frederick L. Zimmerman & Mitchell Wendell, The Law and Use of 
Interstate Compacts at 25 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law held a hearing on H.J. Res. 62 on July 29, 
1999. Testimony was received from the Honorable Jack Kingston 
of Georgia and Charles Challstrom, Acting Director of the 
National Geodetic Survey, an agency of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of 
Commerce.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met in open session and ordered reported the 
resolution H.J. Res. 62 by voice vote, a quorum being present. 
On August 2, 1999, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the resolution H.J. Res. 62 without 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                Committee on Government Reform Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform were received as referred to in clause 
2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the resolution, H.J. Res. 62, the 
following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, August 5, 1999.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res. 62, a joint 
resolution to grant the consent of Congress to the boundary 
change between Georgia and South Carolina.If you wish further 
details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. 
The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman, who can be reached 
at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.
H.J. Res. 62--To grant the consent of Congress to the boundary change 
        between Georgia and South Carolina.
    H.J. Res. 62 would give Congressional consent to the 
boundary change between Georgia and South Carolina. Enacting 
the resolution would result in no cost to the federal 
government. Because enactment of H.J. Res. 62 would not affect 
direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply. The resolution contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S. 
Mehlman, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was 
approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the 
Constitution.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1--Consent of Congress
    Section 1 gives Congressional consent to the interstate 
compact establishing the boundary between Georgia and South 
Carolina. Since the two states have not yet passed legislation 
containing identical descriptions of the boundary, the 
resolution gives the states broad discretion to come up with 
that final, binding technical description. Under one option, 
Georgia's and South Carolina's current boundary legislation 
would become identical and binding if NOAA were to publish a 
map identical to South Carolina's description.\23\ 
Alternatively, the states could adopt each other's language or 
come up with new language to settle their long-standing 
boundary dispute within five years of enactment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ However, NOAA does not, as a matter of policy, place 
interstate boundary lines on its maps unless directed to do so by the 
Congress or the courts. Furthermore, NOAA does not recommend the use of 
a graphical depiction as a legal definition for a state water, due to 
accuracy issues. Testimony of Charles Challstrom before the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (visited July 30, 
1999) . The Committee does 
not intend to direct NOAA to change its policy on the placement of 
boundary lines in maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  
