Which statement about river jurisdiction is not true?

Which statement about river jurisdiction is not true?

• A. Rivers traversing only one state are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state.
• B. When river flows through two or more states each state has jurisdiction over the entire portion of the river.
• C. When a river flows through two or more states, each state has jurisdiction over that portion within its boundaries.
• D. When a river passes through two or more states, no one of these states has the right to pass through the portion of the river falling within the jurisdiction of the other state.

Answer: (B)

River jurisdiction follows the geographic location of the river segments. When a river runs entirely within one state, that state has exclusive authority over it. When the river crosses into multiple states, each state governs the portion of the river that lies within its own borders, not the entire river as a whole. The statement that each state has jurisdiction over the entire portion of the river is not true because authority is divided by where the river actually flows, not by giving one state control over all parts of the river. The other statements align with this idea: a river confined to one state is under that state’s control, and a multi-state river is managed state-by-state for the segments within each state. Navigation and interstate considerations are handled through federal law and inter-state agreements, but the core point is that jurisdiction follows geographic segments rather than the river as a single unit.

River jurisdiction follows the geographic location of the river segments. When a river runs entirely within one state, that state has exclusive authority over it. When the river crosses into multiple states, each state governs the portion of the river that lies within its own borders, not the entire river as a whole. The statement that each state has jurisdiction over the entire portion of the river is not true because authority is divided by where the river actually flows, not by giving one state control over all parts of the river. The other statements align with this idea: a river confined to one state is under that state’s control, and a multi-state river is managed state-by-state for the segments within each state. Navigation and interstate considerations are handled through federal law and inter-state agreements, but the core point is that jurisdiction follows geographic segments rather than the river as a single unit.