Nebraska v. Iowa
143 U.S. 359 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a river forms the boundary between two states, that boundary changes with the gradual and imperceptible deposits of soil (accretion), but it remains fixed in the center of the old riverbed when the river suddenly and violently changes its course to a new channel (avulsion).
Facts:
- The Missouri River forms the boundary between the State of Nebraska and the State of Iowa.
- The river is a fast-flowing, winding stream with soft, sandy banks that are prone to erosion.
- Over time, the river's current gradually washed away land on one side and deposited it on the other, a process known as accretion.
- The erosion was often rapid and visible, with large chunks of the bank falling into the river at once, but the corresponding buildup of new land on the opposite bank was always gradual.
- In 1877, the river experienced a sudden and dramatic change when it cut across the neck of a large U-shaped bend (an 'ox-bow') near Omaha, carving a new, shorter channel and abandoning its old bed.
- This sudden event resulted in a dispute between Nebraska and Iowa over the location of their boundary in the areas affected by both the gradual and sudden changes.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Nebraska initiated an action against the State of Iowa directly in the Supreme Court of the United States, invoking the court's original jurisdiction.
- The suit was brought to determine and establish the official boundary line between the two states along the Missouri River.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the boundary between two states, established along a river, change with the river's course when the change is gradual (accretion), and does it change when the river suddenly cuts a new channel (avulsion)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brewer
Yes, as to accretion, and No, as to avulsion. The legal boundary between two states follows the changing course of a river when the changes are gradual through the process of accretion; however, when the river suddenly abandons its old bed and creates a new one through avulsion, the boundary remains fixed in the center of the old, abandoned channel. The court reasoned that these two long-standing common law principles, governing riparian rights for private property, also apply to boundaries between states and nations. For accretion, the boundary remains the center of the stream, even as its physical location shifts over time. The court rejected the argument that the Missouri River's rapidity makes the doctrine inapplicable, holding that even if the erosion is rapid, the process of deposition (building new land) is still gradual and imperceptible. For avulsion, the court held that a sudden, violent change in the river's channel does not alter the boundary, which stays permanently located in the middle of the deserted riverbed. The 1877 event, where the river cut through an ox-bow, was a clear case of avulsion, thus fixing the boundary in the old channel for that specific area.
Analysis:
This decision authoritatively applies the common law doctrines of accretion and avulsion to disputes over state boundaries formed by rivers. It clarifies that even a uniquely volatile and fast-changing river like the Missouri is governed by these traditional rules. The court's key distinction—that the process of deposition must be gradual for accretion to apply, even if the corresponding erosion is rapid—provides crucial guidance for future cases. This ruling established a durable framework for resolving boundary disputes, ensuring that state lines remain stable through sudden natural events while allowing them to adjust to slow, long-term changes.
