10002 Aurora Ave. N., #5546
Seattle, WA 98133
May 18, 20009
" I 
Exhibit
Port Commission    ulcu'
Port of Seattle Commissioners
Meeting ofMgg'j ,QOIO
Port Headquarters
Seattle, Wa


Dear Commissioner

As promised at my testimony at the May '"5, 2009 Port meeting, I am contacting you regarding the
Port's property line. I believe you own to mean high water only.

Enclosed herewith are relevant parts of the law that authorized Commercial Waterway districts in
Washington State. The law itself is 35 pages long, consisting mostly of how to organize such a district;
how to vote for commissioners of the District; what would be the term of ofce; and a long section
regarding eminent domain procedures. If by chance you want to read the complete law, I can send it to
you.

Also enclosed herewith are two pages of a map of the Duwamish Waterway completed by the
Army corps of engineers in 1925, which I obtained from the City Archives in City Hall. I chose this map
because it is the easiest one to copy. If you wish to obtain a copy of the original survey, which is very
long, you can do so by contacting the State Archives in Bellevue. At the same location there are very
large and bulky maps but all of them show the lines as "Baseline". Baselines are measuring lines, not
property lines. I grew up in the Chesapeake Bay area where the shoreline is so irregular that if a baseline
were not used, the middle of the river could never be straight. Once the middle of a river is ascertained
from measuring from the straight baseline, a specic number of feet is measured on each side, which is
the straight channel. I do not know when the city maps stopped using the baseline indication on the maps.
It could have been when the Port of Seattle acquired the riverbed and did not understand the signicance
of a baseline. It could have been before by someone who did not know what a baseline was, and simply
deleted it. However, that does not change the original character of that line.

Please refer to the map enclosed and you will see that the baseline is clearly delineated as is the
mean high water line. Had the waterway needed beyond mean high water, it would have taken that land
initially.

The original law is found in the Session Laws of 1911, Chapter 11, beginning on page 11 and
ending on page 46. On page 19, Sec. 7(b) states that the board of commissioners shall have the right,
power and authority to straighten, widen, and deepen any and all rivers, watercourses, streams. Sec. 7(d)
gives the commissioners the right to acquire all property for the straightening, deepening or widening, to
accomplish Sec. 7(b)'s mission.

The law did not give authorization for the district to acquire property it did not need for these
purposes. The Commercial Waterway District, and the Port as its successsor did not and does not
,

Letter to Port of Seattle Commissioners
Dated May 18, 2009
Page 2


need any land past mean high water. That land is excluded from your ownership, as it was from the
District's.

On page 21, Sec. 8 giving the right to the riverbed to the District stated:

Sec: 8. All the right, title and interest of the State of Washington
in and to so much of the beds and shores of any navigable river,
stream, waterway or watercourse located within the boundaries
of any commercial waterway district up to and including the line
of ordinary high tide in waters where the tide ebbs and ows and
up to and including the line of ordinary high water within the banks
of any navigable rivers and lakes...

The interest given was specically stated to be to mean high water. The Commercial District, and the
Port as the district's successor, cannot take a right you were not granted. Consequently, ownership
beyond mean high water cannot be claimed.

Article XVII of the Washington State Constitution states:

ARTICLE XVII
TIDE LANDS

SECTION 1 DECLARATION OF STATE OWNERSHIP. The state
of Washington asserts its ownership to the beds and shores of all navi-
gable waters in the state up to and including the line of ordinary high
tide, in waters where the tide ebbs and ows, and up to and including
the line of ordinary high water within the banks of all navigable rivers
and lakes...

Under the Washington State Constitution, the ownership of a river or lake bed and shore is limited to
ordinary high water and the Port of Seattle is bound by that instrument. You cannot act
unconstitutionally; therefore your ownership of the bed of the river is limited to ordinary high tide.

Additionally, there is the Washington State Supreme Court case, "Austin v. Bellingham," 69
Wash. 677, 126 Pac. 59 (1912). This case not only afrms that the beds and shores of navigable lakes
and streams, at p. 680:

the beds
Faith is put in the grant of a right to occupy and use
water
and shores of navigable lakes and streams up "to high
"the upland
mark".     water mark has been dened to be
. .High
boundary of tide and shore lands."

Letter to Port of Seattle Commissioners
Dated May 18, 2009
~
Page 3

But also states at p. 679:

...we have not held in any case that the owner of tide and shore
lands can so use his property as to injure or destroy the use of
abutting property, without meeting the consequential damages.

I mentioned at that May 5 Meeting that I was surprised that you claimed that the Port of Seattle
owned the streetend at South Southern, which adjoins one ofmy properties, and that in any dealings I
have had with the streetend, King County thought it owned that end. On page 20, (e) of Sec. 7, of the
original law allowing Commercial Waterway Districts to be formed, essentially gives the city or county
any use it would normally have with the provision that such city or county use would not "materially
impair the efciency of said commercial waterway..." The Port owns to mean high water but the city or
county owns up to that high tide mark.

As it stands now, the runoff at these streetends into the Duwamish River is not treated or
controlled. Industry is required to install catch basins along its property, but the streetends are not
governed by any law. One way the Port of Seattle could help to reduce and eliminate pollution in the
Duwamish River would be to install catch basins at the streetends such as the ones industry has had to
install.

I have not completed a search of the US. Supreme Court cases regarding mean high water.
However, I do know that the US. Congress has legislated that federal waterways extend to mean high
water. Every commercial waterway in the country adheres to that standard and I do not believe the Port
of Seattle is an exception. I will contact the Port further when I do so complete.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

M. C. Halvorsen

cc: Tay Yoshitani, Port CEO
Joseph Gellings
Boyer Towing
Pacic Pile and Marine
Delta Marine
Jim Gilmour
Lisa De Alva
Hal Hurlen



'
,-         Q1
snssroN LAWS, 1911.
:1'           .on. 11.]   .
_
ex'thensionor game
shall apply to the
'3' Corporated
city or town,
or commercial
'
:1                         .enlargement of any  commercial'wervkay
waterways already existing upo'fov-r' and across any
Efs                                                                                                                  (
-or- tor'vn-r
alley or public placeofany city                               street, aVenue,                           I
'
3'9 -,~.
well'as the original constructijhnl'thereof.
>13                          as
',' st
Size. 8. All the 'right,:title and'inte :
Fd                                             .th
n, ' of thhington
in" and to so much-of 1'
river, stream,'waterway' or.
"it                        of any navigable
commercial m    4                                  located within the boundaries of any         ,-
2;, 
the line of ordinary gh'
3?}                       district up 'to 'and including
and up to::;';,_.
tide in waters where the. tide ebbs and ows
" the:
he    '                       line         high water within
and including the   '4 01'" Ordinary '
lakes, to the extent,
navigable -' rivers and
"'3'                           banks  of any
proceedings to 'belhad, under
that the same, under any
'become part of such river, stream,~-'
this act, shall cease to
watercourse by     of the diversion fof
reason
waterway or                  under" any
or watercourse,
such rivertstream, waterfray
this act, are hereby given and
proceedings .had under
comiilercial waterway
"granted and vested in the respective
hereafter to be formed; and
districts now existing, , or"
of such. respective commercialzwater;
the'commissioner-s ' "'              - "Hand. an,
.' _ 31 new
eel beds
'_ given the'_                   "'1 3'10""-
way districts are hereby   a           manner'and
'
T'izlthority to 'sell such beds
as -goyern;"underithe,
'
'           such noti  ""'a
upon               board of county cOmmis-
e
real estate .b'efj'
of-
The proceeds
benefit of such commercial
be used for the'
con
of any expenses
andthe payment
waterway districts,                     water-
construction of such' commercial
nected with the ' Provided, however, That
thereof:
or maintenance
.                           ial; waterway district.                                                                    ways
such commerci           of _
the commissioners               abandoned beds.
May ex
_                            101.
exchange such           3131133?
'may, in 'their discretion",
'
property
needed in the straighten
other property
and shores, for -
rivers, watercourses
widening of such
or
ing, deepening            may be made upon :such
and which exchange
or streams,                       ~-the discre-
.as, in
1                           and in such areas
terms and. conditions                  advisable and
they may deem
':tion of such commissioners,
u
t

20                                  [03. 11..
i
Efft'fe                -               shall
_ enso acquired
..                                   haveand are hereby

t18 necessary, to diver "lterand change
.
;_e- of or otherwiseimprojieany such river,
r stream aforesaid, or to deepen, widen and
__
j1_1'  the  same:   Provided,  That" s  eh  diversion,
fomgens3-ion obe
mad. :.-l'
,
riparian or otherwise, that may be 13$th or damaged
thereby.
,

' (e)
The right, power and authority to acquire the
necessary and needed rights-of-way for" any and all purposes
created by this' act may be acquired by the cam-
missioners of any waterway district oVer' and
across or
upon any land or" interest therein of the State of Wash-
ington, or any county of this state, andstreets, alleys,
and avenues, or public places of any city, town
or munic-
ipa' "  tion ,of this state: Provided, however, That
'

,           Eggdldtovtlth   the cfo"                511Gb gcgmmercial waterway  or  com-
i,    E I
' "nun?" .


,               author        mercial 'w'a erway-sa
'
'
1 '~1
'
g .                  any right, power 0:

i
g -     above or across such commercial
i                                                                                     _,
waterways, sewers, water pipes, ma"
i                                                                   ,    the grantmg of
any franchise thereon, or improve by the way of plank-
_ ing,replanking, paving, repaving or any other power,
i               right and authority which, but for this act, such city or
town Would have in or to such street, avenue, alley or
.                              public place, except, hOWever, that such right, power and

' it?

,,                            authority on  behalf  of  such        or town
'                                                                city             shall  not

I                                                                               be
exercised either by such city or toWn or by any person
or persons, rms or corporations, to whom it might grant
'
any right or franchise which will materially impair the
'95
efciency of said commercial Waterway or commercial
' 333%?" waterways. The provisions of this section as
5.           C  6                                                                   regards
i
c" ""
z
such system of commercial waterway or commercial water-
11m ts.
'
ways, to be constructed within the boundaries of any in- 



~-

A!

*
.   pal-r

- [IG'ILIE


.



' DUWAMISH 'WATERWA

s EATTLE HARBOR, WASH,

IN 3 SHEETS     SHEET NO. 3    SCALE2 I INCH= 200 FT.
loo'-     g        |        z        5       '       5       6       7        a       9       lo       M      11.00 H',

U. S. ENGINEER OFFICE, SEATTLE,WASH.

. Submi He d '. .


_ Appmved:
d

'


- - -- .
'_ :LrCJ                              J42:
Evil  EngIneer "                                    ineer's      '3.\~\\""
FIIeII-.                               .                                  o E      Maj      9Irs of. En
Mapre/rrea' 7'0 07 paragraph . .    /2/  Transm/f ea' m'b'w /e er- o'a/ed
of 5peC/WEa/I'a'ns far 'Df'gu/glhy' Survcycdl'yE-Sg,  ,       5
Drawn WI}???

10002 Aurora Ave. N., #5546
Seate, WA 98133
February 14, 2010

Port of Seattle commissioners
Port of Seattle Headquarters
Seattle, Washington

Dear Port of Seattle Commissioners:

As promised in my letter to you ofMay 18, 2009, wherein I said that I would contact you when I
completed a search ofUnited States Supreme Court cases including Federal Court cases regarding "mean high
water", I am writing this letter. I have completed my research on the subject and. the following is what I have
found.

Chief Justice John Marshall (and I assume you all know who he is) dened rivers in the United States in
"Handley's Leasee v. Anthony" 5 Wheat 374 (1820) saying at p. 385

The shores of a river border on the water's edge.

In "Howard v. Ingersoll" 54 US. 381 (1851) said at p. 391

A river consists of water, a bed and banks. The bed or channel is the
space over which the water ows...
[The riverbed] neither takes in overowed land beyond the bank, nor
includes swamps or low grounds...

The Court went on to say the right ofthe state to the riverbed was limited to line of ordinary high water and not to
the line of the highest water. See also "Montano v. United States" 450 US. 544 (1981), "Harkins v. Del Pozzi" 50
Wash. 2d 337 (1957).

In "Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo" 26 U. S. 110, the Court stated at p. 115:

The original grant ofjurisdiction, in such cases, to the Courts of the
United States is ample, 2d section 3d art Cons. US. The admiralty
jurisdiction is 'of all cases of admiralty a maritime jurisdiction' generally,
without restriction; whether they arise under the Constitution, law, and
treaties of the United States, or the law of nations.

See also "Scranton v. Wheeler" 179 U,S, 144, "Borax Consolidated v. City ofLos Angeles, 296 US. 10.

"Escanabaa and Lake Michigan Transportation Co. v. City of Chicago" 107 US. 678 (1881) stated:

Ifthe power of a State with respect to a navigable river and that ofthe
Federal Government come in conict, the power ofthe Federal Gov-
ernment must control in view ofthe fact that the constitution gives
the right to legislate in reference to navigable waters.

"
See also  United States v. California" 332 U,S, 19.

In "Austin v. Bellingham" 69 Wash 677, (1912), the Washington State Supreme Court said at p. 680:

Faith is put in the grant of a right to occupy and use the beds and
shores of navigable lakes and streams up 'to high water mark...

Letter to Port of Seattle Commissioners
Dated February 15, 2010
Page 2

And at p. 681, it says:

Its rights are limited to the line of ordinary high water.

Thus, the United States Supreme court has uniformly held that all rivers are to mean high water; that
navigable waters ofthe United States are under US. jurisdiction (United States v. Texas" 143 US. 621, United
States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co." 174 US 690) that the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river
system is under the United States jurisdiction; ifa State law conicts with a Federal law, Federal law prevails
("Escanabaa and Lake Michigan v. City of Chicago" 107 US. 678, "United States v, California" 332 US. 19)

In addition the Washington State Constitution, Article XVII, which I quoted verbatim in my letter to you
ofMay 18, 2009 states clearly that the waters ofthe State of Washington are to mean high water. The State
Constitution has not been amended. It is in full force and effect and is the supreme law in Washington State.

I next traced the Port's claim to have a "right ofway" of 500 feet. I have never found anywhere that
there is such a thing as a right ofway in a federal waterway because the waters are open to everyone free of
charge. It seems that in 1937 one John Nelson anchored a houseboat in the Duwamish River and claimed he
owned the adjoining property. The Commercial Waterway District No. 1 sued. In "Commercial Waterway
District No. 1 v. Nelson" from reading the opinion one can tell that the Judges of the court were under the
impression that the Duwamish River was 500 feet its whole length and so ruled that the District had a 500 foot
right ofway. This is a deception and a fraud upon the Court. There is no statute of limitations for fraud. The
following two cases, "State of Washingtonv Commercial Waterway District No 1" and "Commercial Waterway
District No. 1 v. Permanente"only repeated that opinion obtained by fraud.

In "Union Pacic Railroad Co. v. Snow" 231 US. 204 the United States Supreme Court stated at p. 211

...a judgment though not erroneous when rendered, may become so by a
subsequent law."

I believe it was erroneous, obtained through aud, but the principle remains the same. A subsequent law
can conrm it is erroneous, thus void and not binding. The Washington State Supreme Comt decisions are void
anyway with regard to the borders ofthe Duwamish river because they had no jurisdiction to hear these cases as
the jurisdiction rested with the admiralty court ofthe federal government. However, the "subsequent law" ofthe
federal court was expressed in the following case.

.In "United States v. Pend Oreille Public Utility District No. 1" 28 F.3d 154 (1991) (this is the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal court higher than the Washington State Supreme Court.) ruled that in
Washington State "Austin v. Bellingham" 69 Wash. 677, 126 P. 59 (1912) is controlling. "Austin v. Bellingham"
states that the waters of Washington State are to mean high water and that is controlling. Thus, the Port of Seattle
owns to mean high water which, according to the Coast and Geodetic Survey, is 8 feet.

As a law abiding organization, the Port of Seattle has the duty to petition the Washington State Supreme
Court to modify its rulings in the three cases of the Commercial Waterway District from 500 feet to mean high
water so that no state government agency can misrmderstand.

Ofcourse, failing that, there can be a lawsuit led in Federal Court wherein the Port of Seattle will have
to explain why the Port is defying the Ninth Circuit Court Appeals ruling, ignoring the Washington State
Constitution and why the Port of Seattle wants to continue the aud perpetrated on the Washington State Supreme
Court with the result of the taking of property ofthe owners along the Duwamish River, which is unconsntitutional
violating the 5* Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Letter to Port of Seattle commissioners
Dated February 15, 2010
Page 3

Awaiting your reply, I remain

Very truly yours,

M. C. Halvorsen

cc:  Tay Yoshitani CEO, Port of Seattle
Thomas Tanaka, Port of Seattle
Boyer Towing
Pacic Pile and Marine
Delta Marine
Jim Gilmour
Lisa De Alva
Hal Hurlen

10002 Aurora Ave. N., #5546
Seattle, Wa 98110
February 22, 2010

Port of Seattle Commissioners
Port of Seattle Headquarters
Seattle, Washington

Dear Port of Seattle Commissioners:

I see that on page 2 ofmy letter to you of February 14-15, 2010 that with regard to the
Washington State Supreme Court cases, I neglected to give you the citations. 0n the rst one, I mistyped
Nelson instead ofLarson

The citations are as follows:

Commercial Waterway District No. 1 v. Larson, 26 Wash.2d 219, 173 p.2d 531

Commercial Waterway District No. l v. State of Washington, 50 Wash2d 335,
3 1 1, p.2d 680

Commercial Waterway District No. l v. Permanente, 61 Wasth 509, 379 P.2d 178.

I am still awaiting your reply.

Very truly yours,

M. C. Halvorsen

cc: Tay Yoshitani, CEO, Port of Seattle
Thomas Tanaka, Port of Seattle
Boyer Towing
Pacic Pile and Marine
Delta Marine
Jim Gilmour
Lisa De Alva
Hal Hurlen

There has been a difference of opinion regarding just where the property line is in the Duwamish

Waterway between the Port of Seattle and the owners ofthe property. The Port of Seattle maintains that

the Port owns a width of 500 feet regardless ofwhere the water stops. The property owners maintain that

the correct line ofPort ownership is to mean high water, which according to the U. S. Coast and Geodetic

Survey, is 8 feet. In researching the matter, M. C. Halvorsen found that the US. Supreme Court, the nal

arbiter ofwhat is the law in this country, has ruled that the shores of a river border on the water's edge;

that the right of the state to the riverbed was limited to line of ordinary (mean) high water;the jurisdiction of

navigable rivers rests with the federal government; that if there is a conict between the state law and the

federal law, the federal law prevails. Citations furnished upon request.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, request that the Port of Seattle take the necessary action to resolve the

issue ofthe property line in the Duwamish Waterway in accordance with the State and Federal Law, and

designate M C. Halvorsen as our spokesperson.

DATED this'Zay ofMarch, 2010
56% Wit/6 ,yJC'
IMWIQeMOC limb" is
PAMF/C. PM; :f Mme/we LP.

7224 #1 Manama" tax/,7 ,L'x/Cb

wWWJ/W/IVEJW
Cvow L/SQLLOLCOM
Sou,   ark Vlad: a,

_ PO. Box 1209
Port
.    attentive
of seatt le
www.portseattle.org

April 20, 2010

Mrs. M.C. Halvorsen
- 10002 Aurora Avenue North, # 5546
Seattle, WA 98133

Re:  Questions Regarding Duwamish Waterway

Dear Mrs. Halvorsen:

At our March 17 meeting, you asked for responses on two issues. The rst was an interpretation
of Section 8 ofthe original laws regarding the powers of commercial waterway districts and
second, what ownership rights the Port of Seattle ("Port") possessed in the Duwamish Waterway
("Waterway").

.With respect to your rst question: Chapter 11 of the Session Laws of 1911 established the
powers of commercial waterway districts. Section 7, in particular, set forth the general waterway
district powers to acquire property to carry out the purposes of the district, whether by eminent
domain or by purchase (see subsection (a)).

You called our attention to Section 8 of the Session Laws, which states as follows:

All the right, title and interest of the State of Washington in and to so much of the
beds and shores of any navigable river, stream, waterway or watercourse located
within the boundaries of any commercial waterway district up to and including
the line of ordinary high tide in waters where the tide ebbs and ows and up to
and including the line of ordinary high water within the banks of any navigable
rivers and lakes, to the extent that the same, under any proceedings to be had
under this act, shall cease to become part of such river, stream, waterway or
watercourse by reason of the diversion of such river, stream, waterway or
watercourse, under any proceedings had under this act, are hereby given and
granted and vested in the respective commercial waterway districts now existing,
or hereafter to be formed...

It is your position that this section controls and denes the ownership of the Port, as successor in
interest to the Commercial Waterway District No. 1 of King County ("District"), in the current
channel of the Duwamish. I disagree. This section describes what happens to the state of
Washington's title to river beds when a waterway district diverts a river's waters during the
creation of a new waterway channel. The language is difcult to follow, but a careful reading

Halvorsen Letter
April 20, 2010
Page 2 of 2


shows it was addressing abandoned channels. Perhaps it may be easier to understand by reading
the most relevant portions:

All the right, title and interest of the State of Washington...to...the beds and
shores of any navigable river,... up to and including the line of ordinary high
water.
.
.to the extent the same.
. .shall cease to become part of such river, stream,
waterway or watercourse by reason of the diversion of such river...are hereby
given [to] the. . .commercial water districts. . ..

The key is that this section says that the District obtained'the title'to river beds that "shall cease
'to beecme p'a'ft'of such fivc'er.
. .by
reason ofd'iversion of Such river.
.
.'."' This does not apply to
the situation of the existing channel of the Duwamish Waterway.

You may be under the impression that property owners abutting the current channel of the
Waterway have their waterside property line established at the Waterway's mean high water line.
I don't believe that is the case. The waterside property boundaries were likely set by a surveyed
line established by the District over 90 years ago. The mean high water line might be relevant if
there were no specic survey or plat line demarcating the waterside boundary. It would be
important to verify the legal description of the lots abutting the Waterway, but I believe they will
show a surveyed line and not refer to the meander line or the Waterway's mean high water line
as the waterside boundary.

Your second question asked about the Port's ownership of the 500 foot Width of the Waterway.
The District obtained title to the Waterway channel through direct purchase and eminent domain
ofnumerous parcels after 1911. We currently do not have copies of those deeds or court orders
in our les. Those les should be on record at the King County Courthouse. The Port acquired
its title to the District's assets through the procedures under Chapter 97 of the 1963 Session
Laws. We have no reason to question the title to these properties and we feel no need at this
time to verify our status. There have been a number of cases before the Washington State
Supreme Court (some ofwhich you have citedin your.-earlier letters) regarding the ownership
status of the Waterway channel and no one has raised a challenge to the underlying title to the
channel. We are satised regarding our status as owner of the Waterway.

Sincerely,
WW
Thomas H. Tanaka
Senior Port Counsel

10002 Aurora Ave. N., #5546
Seattle, WA 98133
April 28, 2010

Thomas H. Tanaka
Senior Port Counsel
Port of Seattle
P. O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111-1209

Dear Tom:

I am in receipt of your letter of April 20, 2010 wherein it is apparent that we
are not
communicating on the same frequency. You do remember that I wanted to record the meeting because it
has been my experience that people remember meetings differently. You rersed. This is exactly why I
wanted a record.

I was not asking you for an interpretation of Section 8 ofthe original laws regarding the creation
ofthe Commercial Waterway Districts, nor an interpretation ofthe Port's ownership ofthe bed ofthe
Duwamish River. I was not asking questions. I was stating facts. The other issues involved federal law
which you did not address in your letter at all.

The rst issue regarding Section 8 of Chapter 11 ofthe Session Laws of 1911 states clearly that
the boundary ofthe commercial waterway district is up to and including the line of ordinary high tide in
waters where the tide ebbs and ows. I don't nd it difcult to follow. It is in plain English. Your reply
that this applies only to the property acquired by eminent domaine is convoluted thinking Such an
assertion, then, leaves a strip of land between ordinary high water and high, high water, which presumably
the original owner would own. That is unthinkable. Your statement that it does not apply to the situation
ofthe existing channel ofthe Duwamish Waterway is untenable.

Your assertion that the waterside property boundaries were likely set by a surveyed line borders
on
the absurd. It is a great surprise to me that you do not know what a baseline is. As I have said in the past, I
grew up in the Chesapeake Bay area and everyone knew what a baseline was. It is a measuring line
established by survey whereby it measures how to straighten the river or straighten a seacoast.. It has
nothing to do with the property line. It is a mistake by the Port to so assert. Admiralty law states that in
areas where the border of a river or the coastline of a bay are irregular two straight lines are drawn on both
sides of the area to measure to the middle ofthe body of water; thus enabling the measurement of
a certain
number of feet on either side ofthe middle to obtain the straight channel. I repeat it has nothing to do with
the property lines.

With regard to the federal issues, there were three. The rst issue involved Chief Justice John
Marshall who in the case of "Handley's Leasee v. Anthony' 5 Wheat 374 (1820) dened that the shores of
a river border on the water's edge. In "Howard v. Ingersoll" the United States Supreme Court said that the
right ofthe state to the riverbed was limited to line of ordinary high water and not to the line of highest
water (i.e. high, high tide). You stated to me verbally that a state can do anything it pleases within its
borders and does not need to pay attention to federal law. You did not address these issues in the letter.

In "Ascanabaa and Lake Michigan Transportation Co. v. City of Chicago" 107 US. 678 (1881)
the United States Supreme Court said that ifthe power of a state with respect to a navigable river, in this
case the Duwamish river, and that ofthe Federal government come in conict, the power ofthe Federal
government, the power ofthe Federal government must control. The Port of Seattle assertion that it owns

Ltr to Thomas Tanaka, Port of Seattle
Dated Aril 28, 2010
Page 2

beyond ordinary high water is in direct conict with the ndings ofthe United States Supreme Court. (By
.the way, I have the court case that says that ordinary high water has come to mean "mean high
water" according to the Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts.) You probably know ordinary high water is a
little higher than mean high water but it is not as high as high, high water. Again, you verbally told me that
states can do as they please within their borders and do not need to heed the federal government.

The last federal issue involved the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals and its nding regarding what
case is controlling in Washington State. In 1991, in "United States v. Pend Oreille Public Utility District
No. l" 28 F.3d 154 (1991) the Ninth Circuit ruled that "Austin v. Bellingham" 69 Wash. 677, 126 P.2d 59
(1912) was the case that was controlling in Washington State. "Austin v. Bellingham" states that the
waters ofthe state ofWashington are limited to the line of ordinary high water. I can't see where you
answered that issue at all as you had dismissed all federal court cases at the meeting. This means that if
the Port had land beyond the ordinary high water mark, which the Port does not, but if it did, it would have
to comply with the ruling of "Austin b. Bellingham"; i.e. ordinary high water.

I don't believe that the Port wants to nd itself in the Court of the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals
explaining why it is defying that Court's ruling, with the untenable excuse that states can do as they please
within their borders. Somehow, I don't think the Ninth Circuit will agree with you.

I had thought that I was meeting with the highest legal authority ofthe Port but I was mistaken. I
was told that Craig Watson was the General Counsel but that you were the Senior Port Counsel and you
would be handling this matter. I realize now that the person that I should be meeting with is Craig Watson.
After all, Craig Watson would be the one who would be defending the Port of Seattle and its
Commissioners on the issue in the Ninth Circuit Court and he is the Port's highest legal counsel.

Therefore, I assume you or Mary Gin Kennedy will arrange a convenient time for a meeting with
Craig Watson and me and whomever else should be there. Iwill be accompanied by one person as a
witness.

Awaiting your reply to arrange the meeting, I remain

Very truly yours,

M. C. Halvorsen

cc: Port of Seattle Commissioners
Craig Watson
Tay Yoshhitani
Mary Gin Kennedy \
Boyer Towing, Inc.
Independent Metals
Pacic Pile and Marine
Delta Marine Center
Duwamish Marine Center
South Park Marina
Riverview Marina