I attended a Dennis Mouland Seminar last week. I learned something new that also seemed to surprise many of the other attendees.
Lets say someone owns both the surface and leaseable mineral rights in a nominal 40 acre aliquot parcel. At time of statehood, and on the original plat, it was not on a navigable stream. A nearby navigable stream has gradually eroded into the parcel leaving about 35 acres on the surface.
According to Mr. Mouland, the owner of the 35 remaining surface acres still owns the original 40 acres of leaseable mineral rights. The State owns the mineral rights as they existed at the time of Statehood. The original plat may provide the best evidence of that location.
He cited three IBLA administrative law cases to support this. Does anyone know of any State or Federal, Appellate or Supreme Court cases to support this?
> I attended a Dennis Mouland Seminar last week. I learned something new that also seemed to surprise many of the other attendees.
>
> Lets say someone owns both the surface and leaseable mineral rights in a nominal 40 acre aliquot parcel. At time of statehood, and on the original plat, it was not on a navigable stream. A nearby navigable stream has gradually eroded into the parcel leaving about 35 acres on the surface.
>
> According to Mr. Mouland, the owner of the 35 remaining surface acres still owns the original 40 acres of leaseable mineral rights. The State owns the mineral rights as they existed at the time of Statehood. The original plat may provide the best evidence of that location.
>
> He cited three IBLA administrative law cases to support this. Does anyone know of any State or Federal, Appellate or Supreme Court cases to support this?
Corvallis Sand and Gravel v Oregon?
on point or maybe not? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/429/363
Not sure, but I suspect Dennis is discussing what the 2009 BLM Manual refers to as Mineral Leasing Act Surveys under the Mineral Leasing Act. Sec. 10-79 to Sec 10-80 has the discussion on this. Sec. 10-78 refers to three Interior decisions. I suspect these are the three decisions to which Dennis referred.
The Manual discusses patented mining claims in Secs. 8-187 to 8-189. Owners of patented mineral claims that have riparian rights can gain by accretion and lose by erosion just as other landowners.
Hope this helps
Jerry
In many eastern states, where mineral rights continue to be a significant source of revenue (including PLSS states) none of this applies.
I'm sure Mr. Mouland was commenting only on the state where he gave the seminar, or other western states still under BLM supervision.
Mineral Rights and Water Movements.
If Dennis was citing IBLA cases as the authority then of course it would apply only to Federal Interest lands where the Feds control the mineral rights. Since he apparently was talking about mineral rights being leased I assumed he was talking about leasing from the Feds. This is a special situation. So, you are correct that it has little application to most of the country east of the Mississippi.
The original subject line is a little overly inclusive. In many instances the mineral rights do follow the water movements. It is as far as I know only the minerals leased under the Mineral Leasing Act that they do not follow the water. Of course there seems to be exceptions to just about everything.
Jerry