33.1 governs the ownership of mineral rights under lands inundated by the Pick-Sloan Missouri basin project dams. Section 61-33.1-02 limits State sovereign ownership of the minerals of the riverbed segments inundated by Pick-Sloan Missouri basin project dams “to the historical Missouri Riverbed channel up to the ordinary high water mark.” After chapter 66-33.1 was enacted, Plaintiffs argued there was no possible outcome under the new law that would result in the State owning the disputed minerals. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Insofar as the surface ownership is concerned, Plaintiffs had only sued to quiet title to the minerals underlying the property. However, the district court also made a determination that the State owned the surface when it made its ruling. The Supreme Court stated that the district court erred in its determination that the State owned the surface as it appears the United States has an interest in the surface that would be affected by this decision. In addition, the issue of surface ownership had not been raised in the pleadings by any of the parties. The Supreme Court noted that the federal Submerged Lands Act recognizes the
states’ title to lands beneath navigable waters, but exempts all tracts of land which were lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States through eminent domain proceedings, purchase, or otherwise in a proprietary capacity. In regards to ownership of the minerals, N.D.C.C. ch. 61-31.1 became effective April 21, 2017, but was made retroactive to the date of closure of the Pick-Sloan Missouri basin project dams and the determination of the ordinary high water mark under the act was made retroactive to all oil and gas wells spud after January 1, 2006, for purposes of oil and gas mineral and royalty ownership. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court so it would have the opportunity to consider the new statutory provisions and determine whether N.D.C.C. ch. 61-33.1 applies to and governs ownership of the minerals at issue. In addition, the Supreme Court determined that the district court had erred in ruling the State’s action did not violate the takings clause of the North Dakota Constitution. The federal government had compensated the Plaintiffs for the surface property, but the Plaintiffs were never compensated for the mineral interests. If the
17
G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y / M a r c h
2 0 1 8
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs