In the case of Utah v. United States in 1968, the state of Utah sought to establish its ownership over the bed of the Great Salt Lake, arguing that it had been a navigable body of water at the time when Utah became a state and thus under common law principles should belong to them. The U.S. government disputed this claim on two grounds: first, they argued that parts of lake were not actually navigable; secondly, they claimed that even if it was considered as such, there was an exception for bodies with fluctuating levels like Great Salt Lake due to their unsuitability for commerce or navigation. However, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Utah stating that despite fluctuations in size and depth over time due to natural causes did not affect its status as a navigable body at statehood thereby making it subject to sovereign control by State.

In the dissenting opinion for Utah v. United States, 1968, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny Utah ownership of certain lands submerged by navigable waters contradicted previous court rulings and federal policies. The dissenters believed that when Utah became a state in 1896, it gained title to all lands beneath navigable waters within its borders under the "equal footing" doctrine - a principle affirming new states enter the Union with sovereignty equal to original states. They also pointed out inconsistencies between this case and prior decisions regarding land grants made before statehood which were not explicitly revoked upon admission into the Union. Furthermore, they disagreed with how majority interpreted Submerged Lands Act (SLA) of 1953; while majority saw SLA as Congress' attempt to clarify rather than change existing law on submerged lands ownership, dissenters viewed it as an effort by Congress to return these disputed areas back to respective coastal or riverine states after years of litigation over their control.