In the 1935 case Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Borax Consolidated Limited and against the City of Los Angeles regarding a dispute over land ownership rights to valuable tidelands containing oil reserves near Wilmington, California. The city claimed that it had acquired these lands under its charter from the state of California while Borax argued that they held title through federal patents issued by Congress which granted railroad companies alternate sections of public lands along their routes as part of an incentive program for railway construction in western states during late 19th century. The court found that although some parts were submerged and subject to tidal influence at high water mark when surveyed for patenting purposes, they were not navigable-in-fact or used or susceptible for commerce at any time relevant to this litigation hence did not fall within ambit of public trust doctrine reserved by states upon admission into Union; thus could be validly conveyed under congressional grants without violating equal footing doctrine.

In the dissenting opinion for Borax Consolidated, Ltd. et al. v. Los Angeles, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to grant ownership of valuable tidelands to private entities was a departure from long-standing principles of public trust doctrine and common law precedent. He contended that these lands should be held in trust by the state for public use rather than being given over to private corporations or individuals who could exploit them for personal gain at the expense of public interest. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential environmental damage resulting from such exploitation and stressed on preserving natural resources as part of our national heritage.