Legal
Updates Articles are not intended to be and should not be relied upon as legal advice or to establish any kind of an attorney-client relationship with the author.
A River Ran Through It: State v. Riemer and What Happens to the Mineral Rights When the Water Runs Dry
Lake Meredith is a reservoir located about 30 miles northeast of Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle. It was formed when the State of Texas built the Sanford Dam on the Canadian River in 1965. When the dam was completed the natural flow of the Canadian River was halted, with only water that naturally filtered through the soil continuing downstream. Damming the Canadian created a rich downstream marshland for cattails, willows, reeds, beavers, and muskrats. It also created a fertile ground for the dispute of mineral rights in the newly-exposed riverbed.
In Texas, the ownership of mineral rights in river and stream beds generally depends on whether the waterway is considered “navigable.” 2 The test for navigability is not necessarily whether you can don your skipper hat and pilot a 40-foot catamaran down the stream, but is more a creature of public utility. As one court has observed, “waters, which in their natural state are useful to the public for a considerable portion of the year are navigable.” 3 So whether you are kayaking the Colorado or tubing the Comal, there is a good chance you are cracking a Coors over State-owned minerals. Conversely, for most non-navigable rivers and streams the minerals are owned by the adjacent landowners up to the center line (or “thread”) of the waterway. Note that in some instances private owners may acquire by conveyance the minerals under even a navigable waterway. For example, there are historic examples of a land grant from the State purporting to include the beds of navigable streams. The legislature addressed these anomalies by enacting a law known as the “Small Bill” 4 in 1929. The Small Bill relinquished certain rights in navigable streams, including the mineral rights, to the adjoining private landowners. However, as illustrated in State v. Riemer , a recorded survey is not a “conveyance” that 1 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4406 (Amarillo, June 25, 2025). 2 See TEX. NAT. RES. CODE. § 11.041. In 1837, the Republic of Texas modified Mexican civil law by adding the “thirty foot” statute and distinguishing navigable and non-navigable streams. Thus, a stream that has an average width of 30 feet from the mouth up is defined as a navigable stream. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE. § 21.001(3). 3 Welder v. State, 196 S.W. 868, 873 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1917, writ ref’d). 4 Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Art. 5414a.
Although the headwaters of these disputes can be traced back decades, a recent appellate decision in State v. Riemer 1 has addressed whether the State of Texas unconstitutionally took valuable oil and gas interests from adjacent landowners along a six-mile stretch of riverbed. Years after the Sanford Dam was completed, these adjacent riparian landowners sued the State for “inverse condemnation” without just compensation. Because the landowners waited so long, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that their constitutional claims were barred by the ten-year statute of limitations. Before diving into the facts, it helps to start with some basics of streambed mineral ownership in Texas.
I. Ownership of Minerals in Texas Streambeds Generally
17
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2025
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting