841 N.W.2d 664
N.D.2013Background
- Eleven named upland owners sue the State and state land agencies seeking declaration they own minerals under shore zone.
- Brigham Oil & Gas interpleads to determine proceeds for mineral interests under shore zone.
- District court grants partial summary judgment: State owns minerals in shore zone, excluding upland owners' proprietary interest.
- Appeals consolidated; district court stayed delineation of ordinary high watermark; final judgments allow challenges in separate proceedings.
- Case discusses whether N.D.C.C. § 47-01-15 is a gift or a construction rule; relies on anti-gift clause.
- Court holds State owns minerals under shore zone at statehood and § 47-01-15 is a rule of construction, not a grant to upland owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State owns mineral interests under the shore zone | Upland owners claim minerals belong to them under 47-01-15 | State holds minerals under shore zone per equal footing/public trust | State owns minerals under shore zone under equal footing |
| Role of NDCC 47-01-15 in transferring minerals | §47-01-15 grants minerals to upland owners | §47-01-15 is a rule of construction, not a grant | §47-01-15 is a rule of construction, not an absolute grant to upland owners |
| Effect of Mills on private ownership of shore zone | Mills supports full private ownership to low watermark | Mills construed as non-absolute; not grant of minerals | Mills is a rule-of-construction, not a grant of absolute ownership |
| Public trust/equal footing limits on private ownership | Public trust does not constrain private mineral ownership | Equal footing/public trust prevent private grant of high-water minerals | State cannot abdicate to private ownership; minerals remain subject to public trust and equal footing constraints |
| Impact of anti-gift clause on transfer of mineral rights | Anti-gift clause allows gifting to upland owners | Anti-gift clause precludes gifting of State’s equal footing minerals | Anti-gift clause prevents gift; upland owners may take only where title chain shows grant to low watermark |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. State, 523 N.W.2d 537 (N.D. 1994) (interprets 47-01-15 as rule of construction to avoid gift violation)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 132 S. Ct. 1215 (U.S. 2012) (equal footing and public trust governing navigable beds)
- Oregon v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1977) (equal footing; state ownership at statehood vs. public trust)
- Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1892) (state cannot abdicate sovereign interest to private parties)
- Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1894) (riparian rights framework under state sovereignty)
- Solberg v. State Treasurer, 53 N.W.2d 49 (N.D. 1952) (anti-gift clause analysis; informs §47-01-15 interpretation)
- Haugland v. City of Bismarck, 2012 ND 123, 818 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 2012) (anti-gift clause history; urban renewal exception discussed)