835 F. Supp. 2d 985
D. Mont.2011Background
- Westmoreland, on behalf of the Crow Tribe, sues Peters (surface owner) alleging interference with Westmoreland’s mineral rights to surface use.
- Property is within the Crow Indian Reservation; minerals were conveyed to the United States in trust for the Crow, with a patent reserving coal, oil, gas, and other minerals.
- The Crow Tribe leased the minerals to Westmoreland under the Indian Mineral Development Act; Westmoreland subleases to Absaloka Coal LLC, with Interior and Crow Tribe approvals.
- Westmoreland has been mining Crow-owned coal in the South Extension and expects to reach Peters’ Property within four to five years; project plans estimate years to overburden removal, mining, reclamation, and eventual release.
- Peters objects to open-pit mining on his Property and argues surface-owner consent is required; the court grants Westmoreland’s partial summary judgment and denies Peters’ motion, with a status conference ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal law controls the surface-use issue | Westmoreland’s rights arise from the US-held minerals for Crow; federal law governs | Peters argues SMCRA and state law govern surface consent | Federal law applies |
| Whether SMCRA requires surface-owner consent on Indian lands | SMCRA does not apply to Indian lands for surface consent | SMCRA provisions require consent, with Indian-lands caveat | SMCRA does not require consent on Indian lands; Indian lands exempted from §1304(c) |
| Whether Montana law grants a right to reasonably use the surface as incident to mineral rights | Montana law authorizes reasonable surface use by mineral owners | Surface rights depend on severed interests and express permissions | Montana law supports a right to reasonable surface use by the mineral owner as incident to the mineral estate |
| Whether Peters’ consent is required for mining on the Property | Right to mine under US/Crow leases permits entry without Peters’ consent | Consent or express grant is required under certain regulatory regimes | No Peters’ consent is required to exercise lessee rights under the patent and leases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1979) (federal law governs Indian title interests when government retains trust)
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1974) ( Indian title determined by federal law)
- Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1977) (principles for interpreting tribal/federal land interests)
- Kinney-Coastal Oil Co. v. Kieffer, 277 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1928) (two estates—surface servient to mineral; surface use permitted for mining)
- Occidental Geothermal, Inc. v. Simmons, 543 F. Supp. 870 (N.D. Cal. 1982) (mineral rights may authorize surface use where permitted by law)
- Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 492 F.2d 878 (10th Cir. 1974) (mineral interests prevail over surface rights in some contexts)
- Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1942) (statutory interpretation and public land rights in property contexts)