Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 12, 1944; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Kansas filed a suit against Missouri to clarify their common boundary along the Missouri River, specifically from the mouth of the Kansas River northward for approximately 128 miles. The boundary was originally established as the middle of the river's navigable channel at Kansas' admission to the Union in 1861. Kansas alleged that the river's channel had shifted over time, leading to disputes about the boundary, although most issues were resolved during the proceedings except for one concerning the Forbes Bend area.
A special master was appointed to investigate the matter, and after extensive hearings, the master concluded in favor of Missouri regarding approximately 2000 acres of land in dispute. Kansas contended that this land was once part of its territory due to accretion or a sudden change in the river's course, which it argued should keep the boundary at the former center of the river. Missouri disputed these claims, asserting that the land never belonged to Kansas and that no avulsion occurred.
Both states agreed on the legal principles: gradual changes to the river move the boundary, while sudden changes do not. However, they disagreed significantly on the factual evidence and the implications of those facts. The disputed area in Forbes Bend lies between Doniphan County, Kansas, and Holt County, Missouri, with the boundary extending along the current main channel of the river for about five miles. The river flows southeasterly through this region, joining Wolf Creek from the Kansas side near Station 515, with the distance between the Kansas and Missouri bluffs being approximately four miles.
The Burlington Railroad tracks lie parallel to the Missouri bluffs, positioned between the bluffs and the Missouri River, which is characterized as a dynamic and sediment-laden waterway. The river continuously alters its course due to natural forces, with changes in one bend affecting adjacent bends. In 1900, the river flowed southeasterly in a single channel, adhering closely to the Kansas bluffs. Currently, its flow has shifted, forming a bow shape with the old channel acting as the string, resulting in a distance of up to one mile between the current and old channels. From approximately 1914 to 1928, there was a division of channels in Forbes Bend, with the Kansas channel positioned slightly west of the current flow. During significant erosion around 1922-1923, the Missouri channel approached the Burlington tracks closely. Initially, in 1900, the disputed land was recognized as Missouri territory, but this status changed after the Missouri channel dried up starting in 1927, leading to conflicting claims of sovereignty. Kansas asserts that the land became theirs through accretion as the river shifted north and east from 1900 to 1917-1927, effectively moving Missouri soil away while depositing new land on the Kansas side. They argue that even if the land was not firmly attached to Kansas, it was separated only by narrow channels. Additionally, ice jams are said to have caused the river to abandon its original channel near the Missouri bluffs, establishing the new flow location.
Kansas asserts its claim to the disputed area based on two theories: accretion from 1900 to 1917 or 1927, and avulsion occurring in 1917 or 1927, which Kansas argues prevents Missouri from reclaiming the land. Kansas also presents an alternative theory of island formation to support its case if the first two theories are disproven. According to this alternative, the formation of an island on Kansas's side and the subsequent shift of the river's main flow did not impact Kansas's jurisdiction.
Missouri counters Kansas's claims by denying that the disputed land was ever accreted soil of Kansas. Instead, Missouri contends that the area originated as an island in the river beginning around 1910 or 1912, with the river flowing around this island until 1927 or 1928. Missouri maintains that the main channel of the river remained with Kansas to the south and west, asserting that the island has always been Missouri territory.
Missouri challenges both Kansas's theories of accretion and avulsion and the island formation claim. Additionally, Missouri argues that, even if accretion is accepted, there was no avulsive change in 1917 or 1927; rather, the river gradually receded. Missouri claims that the accretion process against its territory ended around 1923 or 1924, after which the river moved slowly back beyond the current channel location.
The historical context of the Bend is divided into three periods: 1900 to 1917, 1917 to 1928, and 1928 to 1940, when the lawsuit was initiated. There is limited documentation for the period from 1900 to 1923, but significant evidence exists from 1923 onward, including maps and aerial photographs. Key exhibits include a 1923 map by the U.S. Engineer Office and a 1941 aerial survey showing conditions at the suit's inception. It is established that around 1900, the river began moving north and east, eroding the Missouri bank and depositing on the Kansas side, linked to upstream changes affecting the river's current.
The excerpt details the erosion and changes in river flow dynamics at a specific point on the Kansas bluffs, roughly one to one-and-a-half miles below Wolf Creek’s mouth. The Missouri bank's soil consists of a quicksand layer beneath gumbo soil, leading to significant erosion during intermediate water levels, causing the topsoil to collapse into the river. Between 1900 and 1920, approximately 4,000 to 5,000 acres of Missouri land, including structures like the Baker schoolhouse, were lost due to this erosion. The Baker schoolhouse was relocated around 1915 to avoid falling into the river.
Evidence indicates that prior to 1912-1914, the river had a single channel. From about 1917 to 1927, there was a divided flow, with conflicting accounts on when the division first occurred and which channel was dominant. Missouri witnesses generally agree that the Missouri channel's flow decreased while the Kansas channel's flow increased before 1927, leading to the former channel drying up almost completely between 1928 and 1934. This process was gradual, taking anywhere from two to ten years, with evidence supporting that the Missouri channel's filling was partially due to deposits from the Mill Creek Drainage Ditch. Kansas witnesses present mixed views regarding river conditions between 1912 and 1928, with some asserting a divided flow while others claim the Missouri channel was the main channel until 1927, possibly impacted by an ice jam.
Witnesses for Kansas assert that significant ice jams occurred in 1917 and 1927, each causing the Missouri River's flow to revert into the Kansas channel. However, the two theories of avulsion presented by Kansas are inconsistent, as the occurrence of avulsion in one year would preclude it in the other based on the available evidence. Some Kansas witnesses claim to have seen no substantial ice jams during those years, while others observed only minor ice presence that did not notably affect river flow. In contrast, Missouri witnesses largely deny the existence of ice jams during these periods, noting that ice is generally common in winter but does not result in abrupt course changes of the river.
Exhibit 46, compiled by the Corps of Engineers, provides strong evidence supporting Missouri's position, indicating that during the disputed time, the river's flow was divided, with the Kansas channel carrying an equal or greater volume of water than the Missouri channel. The map from 1923 illustrates two channels separated by a sizable sandbar, with specific soundings revealing the Kansas channel to be wider at its narrowest point. The Missouri channel's path is described as meandering, while the Kansas channel is more direct and shorter.
Exhibit 47, derived from aerial photographs, presents a similar view for 1926 but is contradicted by the more reliable Exhibit 46 and numerous witnesses from both states, which suggest a greater flow in the Missouri channel. The testimony of two Kansas witnesses, who marked their recollections of the channels' courses, supports the notion that the main channel was on the Missouri side. However, this is inconsistent with the established evidence and testimonies indicating a larger flow in the Missouri channel.
The court found that there was no avulsive change in the river's course during the relevant periods, specifically in 1917 and 1927. While evidence of an ice jam existed for both years, it was determined that these jams did not cause a sudden shift in the river's channel. The 1917 ice jam was deemed insufficient to support claims of avulsion, and the 1927 jam, despite stronger evidence, similarly did not lead to an avulsive change. Kansas, as the complainant, bore the burden of proof to show that the disputed land had shifted jurisdictionally from Missouri to Kansas due to natural changes.
Kansas presented evidence of erosion occurring north and east of the disputed land as early as 1920, but struggled to convincingly demonstrate that the river's main channel had gradually moved from Kansas to Missouri and then suddenly shifted back through newly accreted soil. Additionally, by attempting to establish both accretion and island formation theories, Kansas divided the weight of its evidence, undermining its own case. Evidence indicated that the land in question was not attached to the Kansas bank by accretion but was instead part of an island formed in the river. The evidence suggested that the river's flow had simply shifted from one channel to another without creating a new channel through accreted soil. Overall, the preponderance of evidence supported Missouri’s position regarding the jurisdiction of the disputed land.
The evidence presented largely disproves both accretion and avulsion theories regarding the river's channel shifts. Witnesses from Missouri and Kansas largely agree that from 1927 onward, the main flow was in the Kansas channel, with the Missouri channel drying up significantly by 1933 or 1935. Missouri witnesses suggest this drying began as early as 1922, while Kansas witnesses generally assert it started in 1927. Most testimony indicates that any changes in the Missouri channel's flow occurred gradually over several years, not suddenly, which is necessary to establish avulsion. Kansas has not proven that the river's single channel gradually shifted over to the far erosion point and then abruptly moved back to a new channel. Kansas' case hinges on the theory of island formation, requiring proof that the Missouri channel was the main channel during the formation of the disputed island. Although Kansas presented substantial evidence supporting this claim, there is equally compelling evidence from both Missouri witnesses and some Kansas witnesses that the Kansas channel remained the main navigable channel during the relevant period. The conflicting evidence does not support Kansas' assertion that the main channel ever shifted to the Missouri side. Ultimately, Kansas failed to meet the burden of proving that the main channel changed course significantly. The findings of the master, who favored Missouri based on witness assessments and the evidence presented, were upheld, indicating no basis for concluding otherwise.
The land in dispute will be awarded to Missouri, with the boundary established per the master's report. A decree favoring the defendant will be issued. The complaint involved disagreements over boundary lines at various river points, specifically between War Department Survey Stations 399 and 405 and 510 and 515, as well as areas in Atchison County, Kansas. Prior negotiations initiated by Kansas to settle these disputes were unsuccessful, leading to the litigation. After the suit commenced, the parties agreed on settlements for all areas except the disputed land, which will be included in the decree. Kansas claims that avulsive changes occurred in 1917 and 1927, with accretion beginning around 1900, suggesting the period of change extended to either 1917 or 1927. The complaint indicates an ice jam event that redirected the river's flow occurred around February 1918, although evidence suggests it may have been in 1917. Several ice jam events were also noted in 1927. Numerous witnesses provided varying accounts of these occurrences, with the most reliable testimonies placing significant events in 1915 or 1916. A divided flow of the river was reported at various times by witnesses from both Kansas and Missouri, with differing opinions on the existence and dominance of channels during the period in question.
In 1918, testimonies indicated that the Kansas channel was larger than the Missouri channel, with significant water flow predominantly on the Kansas side. Witnesses from Missouri corroborated that the Kansas channel maintained a substantial flow, often larger than Missouri's. Various testimonies from 1916 to 1929 noted that boats were more frequently placed in the Kansas channel. Some Kansas witnesses suggested that the drying of the Missouri channel began suddenly due to an ice jam in 1929, although the channel retained water until around 1934-1936, primarily due to government diking and revetment projects. Discrepancies emerged between the testimonies of Mrs. J. Coufal and her husband regarding the river's main flow. Witnesses agreed that the Missouri channel flowed around an island but differed on the direction and location of the Kansas channel. The testimony noted that while the Missouri channel was considered the main channel, inconsistencies between the exhibit and witness testimonies could be attributed to differing observational contexts. Missouri claims sovereignty over the disputed land, arguing that the shifting of the main channel and the alluvial deposits connecting the island to Missouri justify its claim, despite the island being formed on the Kansas side.
