Sorum v. State, 947 N.W.2d 382

Background

The Garrison Dam (1944 Flood Control Act) created Lake Sakakawea by inundating land, some of which had mineral reservations retained by prior owners; federal acquisition included many lakebed mineral estates.
Technological advances (horizontal drilling, fracking) after ~2006 made oil under the lake economically producible; the Land Board conducted surveys (Phase 2, Wenck review) to identify the historical ordinary high water mark (OHWM).
2017 Legislative Assembly enacted N.D.C.C. ch. 61-33.1, declaring sovereign ownership limited to historical riverbed up to the OHWM, directing release of certain royalty proceeds (including retroactive claims to Jan. 1, 2006), and appropriating $100M plus a line of credit for refunds.
Plaintiffs (taxpayers) sued seeking a facial declaration that the Act violates the state constitution (gift clause, watercourses clause, privileges/immunities, special laws) and injunctive relief; district court held §61-33.1-04(1)(b) facially violated the gift clause and enjoined payments, but rejected other challenges.
District court awarded attorney fees, costs, and service awards to Plaintiffs. Defendants appealed; ND Supreme Court affirmed denial of dismissal, reversed the gift-clause holding re §61-33.1-04(1)(b), reversed fee/cost/service awards, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 19 joinder (dismissal for nonjoinder)	Plaintiffs (taxpayers) need not join all leaseholders; suit enforces public rights.	Defendants: absent leaseholders/interest-holders are indispensable; dismissal required.	Court: Plaintiffs vindicate public rights; joinder of all affected parties not required. Denial of dismissal affirmed.
Gift clause — SIIF royalty refunds & retroactive revival of lapsed claims (§61‑33.1‑04(1)(b))	Returning SIIF funds for claims lapsed under the statute of limitations is a gratuitous donation prohibited by art. X, §18.	Legislature may waive/extend limitations and recognize previously valid obligations; refunds respond to prior legal/moral obligations.	Court: Revival of previously valid but time-barred claims is permissible where a prior legal obligation existed; refunds from segregated SIIF not an unconstitutional gift. Reversed district court injunction.
Gift clause — renouncing state claims to lakebed minerals/leases/unleased acres/escrows	Plaintiffs: Act gives away state-owned mineral interests and thus violates gift clause.	Defendants: many affected acres were acquired by U.S.; State never owned them; renunciation is not a gift.	Court: Federal acquisition (Flood Control Act, Submerged Lands Act) preempted state ownership of inundated lakebed above historical OHWM; State could not give away what it didn’t own. No gift-clause violation on this ground.
Watercourses clause (art. XI, §3)	Plaintiffs: Act infringes State ownership of watercourses.	Defendants: Clause protects watercourses/navigability as of statehood only; Lake Sakakawea became navigable after statehood.	Court: Clause applies to watercourses navigable at statehood; Lake Sakakawea became navigable post‑statehood. No violation.
Special laws / privileges & uniformity (arts I, §§21–22)	Plaintiffs: Act confers special privileges, arbitrary classification (e.g., 2006 cutoff).	Defendants: Classification is rational (2006 marks onset of subsurface production); law is general in nature.	Court: Classification is rational and not arbitrary; no special‑laws or uniformity violation.
Public trust doctrine	Plaintiffs: Act conflicts with State public trust in navigable beds.	Defendants: Federal title to much of the lakebed supersedes State trust; public trust not implicated.	Court: Federal ownership outside historical channel displaces State public trust interests; Act does not violate public trust doctrine.
Attorney’s fees, costs, service awards	Plaintiffs: Fees justified (common fund / private attorney general doctrines).	Defendants: Awards improper; Plaintiffs not prevailing parties after appeal.	Court: Plaintiffs are no longer prevailing parties; no common fund recovery; fee, cost, and service awards reversed.

Key Cases Cited

National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350 (public‑rights taxpayer suits need not join all affected parties)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (facial‑challenge “no set of circumstances” standard discussed)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (retroactive revival of claims / due process context)
Trustees of Exempt Firemen’s Benev. Fund v. Roome, 93 N.Y. 313 (payment of moral obligations not always a prohibited gift)
Bickerdike v. State, 78 P. 270 (Cal. 1904) (waiver of statute of limitations for state claims not a forbidden gift)
State v. Carter, 215 P. 477 (Wyo. 1923) (statute‑barred claims can reflect moral obligations and not be gifts)
Solberg v. State Treasurer, 78 N.D. 806 (North Dakota 1952) (distinguishing gratuitous conveyances lacking moral/legal obligation)
Ozark‑Mahoning Co. v. State, 37 N.W.2d 488 (North Dakota 1949) (watercourses clause applies only to waterways navigable at statehood)
United Plainsmen v. N.D. State Water Conservation Comm’n, 247 N.W.2d 457 (North Dakota 1976) (recognition of public trust doctrine in ND)
Reep v. State, 841 N.W.2d 664 (North Dakota 2013) (equal‑footing doctrine and state title to riverbeds)