Mineral – Subsurface – Interests
Cuius est solum, ejus est usque ad caelum et ad inferos
Exercise of rights possessed may be limited – by the myriad jurisdictions
in which we live
State Legislature
Statutory
Law
Legislative Mandate
Agency
Courts
Case Law
MINNESOTA LAW
We muddle through !
Administrative
Law
Mining in Minnesota
Taconite Operations
Mines
Plants
Port facilities
Industrial Minerals
Crushed stone
Limestone
Peat
Silica sand
Kaolin clay
Granite
Continuing series: Frac Sand Fever (Star
Tribune)
FRACKING: Frac sand mining opponents
call for statewide moratorium
Frac Sand Mining (MPR)
Sulfide Mining in Minnesota
Minnesota's mining boom: New riches or
new threat? (Star Tribune Sept. 11 2011)
Before open pit copper mine opens in
northern Minnesota, the expansion
debate has started (Star Tribune Nov. 27,
2013)
PolyMet: Developing the NorthMet
Copper, Nickel Mining ..
NorthMet Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
Iron Mining in Minnesota
History of the Iron Range (Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board)
Mining in Minnesota's Iron Range: Past and Future (Friends of the BWCA)
History of Mining in Minnesota (www.miningartifacts.org)
Minnesota Iron Mining (www.taconite.org)
MPR: A timeline of Minnesota's Iron Range
Iron Mining in Minnesota -1950's - YouTube
Essar Steel Minnesota
Minnesota Ore Operations - Keetac and Minntac Minn.
State Policy
Minnesota Statutes 93.001 Policy for mineral development (1987)
“It is the policy of the state to provide for the diversification of the state's mineral
economy through long-term support of mineral exploration, evaluation,
environmental research, development, production, and commercialization”
Ownership of subsurface interests – the rights to explore for any minerals, in general or
specifically, and to mine
• can be possessed by the entities possessing the rights to use the surface
• may or may not be specified in the public record – deed – abstract
• whether the owner can explore and mine depends on the jurisdiction in which the
real estate is located
Ownership of subsurface interests – the rights to explore for any minerals, in general or
specifically, and to mine
• can be possessed by the entities possessing the rights to use the surface
• may or may not be specified in the public record – deed – abstract
• whether the owner can explore and mine depends on the jurisdiction in which the
real estate is located
•
•
•
can also be possessed by another entity – severed mineral interests – different
minerals
may or may not be specified in the public record – deed – abstract
whether the owner of severed mineral interests can explore and mine depends on
the jurisdiction in which the real estate is located
Mineral Rights Title Search. How to Find Mineral Rights Ownership (You Tube)
How to Verify Land Mineral Rights Ownership (eHow)
I May Own Minerals, So Now What? (Mineral Rights Forum)
Mineral Rights (Land Title Guarantee Co)
State Imposed Encumbrances to Federal Title to Land donated for
the Voyageurs National Park
• Reservation of mineral and water power right – state owns mineral rights
• Covenant not to exercise those rights
Ownership of Land and Minerals in BWCAW
The Izaak Walton League of America filed suit
to determine the extent of the mineral rights
possessed by George W. St. Clair and his
successors in interest and whether he could
exercise of those rights in the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area (BWCA)
• the Wilderness Act precludes any exercise
of St. Clair's mineral rights in land within the
boundaries of the BWCA
• requested injunctions against the federal
and state defendants to forbid them granting
St. Clair any permits to explore for, drill for, or
remove minerals from the BWCA
This litigation, in the defendant St. Clair's words, was “born of frustration”
Congress repeatedly memorialized to appropriate funds to purchase the private mineral
rights – one of the recommendations of the Selke Committee on Review of the
BWCA in 1963 to then Secretary of Agriculture Freeman – but has not done so
This litigation, in the defendant St. Clair's words, was “born of frustration”
Congress repeatedly memorialized to appropriate funds to purchase the private mineral
rights – one of the recommendations of the Selke Committee on Review of the
BWCA in 1963 to then Secretary of Agriculture Freeman – but has not done so
Izaak Walton League of America v. St. Clair 353 F. Supp. 698 (D. Minn. 1973
• St. Clair is not at liberty to explore or prospect without a permit from the Forest
Service
Izaak Walton League of America v. St. Clair 497 F.2d 849 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419
U.S. 1009 (1974)
• The case is reversed and remanded with directions that the Forest Service be
allowed to determine, upon proper application, whether a permit should be granted
Wilderness and the Judiciary (2009)
http://waterlegacy.org/sites/default/files/SNFLandOwner_0.jpg
Policy for Mineral Development
Minnesota Statutes c.93
93.001 It is the policy of the state to provide for the diversification of the state’s mineral
economy through long-term support of mineral exploration, evaluation,
environmental research, development, production and commercialization
Will there be taconite plant dominoes?
Minnesota Iron Mining
Tied to steel tracks (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)
Minnesota pilot plant (Online Insider)
Iron mining 2002 (MPR)
Surprise revival for iron mines of Minnesota (Christian Science Monitor April 22,2004)
Minnesota iron goes global (MPR May 19, 2005)
In Minnesota, mining makes and comeback (CNN.com Nov 21, 2007)
Session Daily - Mining proposals come under scrutiny (Jan. 25 2008)
New mining era for northeastern Minnesota -- and new environmental worries
(MinnPost.com Jan 24, 2008)
Mining (Sierra Club, North Star Chapter)
Financial Aspects of Iron Mining
Minnesota Constitution
Mineral Lands (Minnesota Statutes)
Mining (Minnesota Statutes)
Iron Ore Tax (Minnesota Statutes)
Taconite and Iron Mining (Department of
Revenue)
Mining Tax Guide (Minnesota
Department of Revenue)
Mineral Taxes (Department of Revenue)
Mining Tax Study (Minnesota Center for
Fiscal Excellence)
Minnesota iron mining-our communities,
state and nation depend on it (Iron
Mining Association of Minnesota)
The Good and Bad News for Minnesota’s
Iron Range Employment (Feb. 2011
Positively Minnesota)
Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board
State of Minnesota economic development
agency located in Eveleth, Minnesota
Mission - to advance regional growth by
stabilizing and enhancing the economy of
northeastern Minnesota's Taconite Assistance
Area
Services include business development
consulting and financial assistance
•Business Financing
•Low Interest Business Loans
•Economic Development Grants
•Minnesota Business Opportunities
•Tax-Free Commercial Real Estate
History of Agency
Iron Range Resources Biennial Report Fiscal Years
2011-2012
Gender Discrimination
North Country
“It was like they'd never seen a woman before” (Guardian Feb 3, 2006)
Lois E. Jenson et al v Eveleth Taconite Co. (FindLaw) Unofficial
Jenson v Eveleth Taconite (Wikipedia)
United States Treatment of Minerals
Minerals & Mining Law (FindLaw)
Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project (Natural Resources Law Center)
Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies (CRS April, 2013)
Mining Statutes (Bureau of Land Management)
Land and Mineral Ownership (BLM)
The Mining Act of 1872 (Wikipedia)
Allowed individuals and corporations access to the public domain lands – lands that
had always been owned by the federal government – to prospect for minerals and
allow them to make a claim to the minerals they discovered
This claim gave them the right to extract the minerals and title to both land and
minerals could be "patented" by them
The purpose of the legislation was to promote mineral exploration on the federal lands
in the western United States
Offered an opportunity for individuals to acquire title to mines that were already being
worked
The Mining Act of 1872
During the 19th century, silver and gold were mined under the provisions of the 1872
Act in Colorado, California, and Nevada
In the 20th century deposits of copper were mined in Arizona and molybdenum and
tungsten in Colorado
One of the primary forces behind the development of copper, silver, gold, lead,
molybdenum, and uranium
The 1872 Act continues to provide the structure for much of the Western hardrock
mining on public domain lands
Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands (GAO)
Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands (National Academies Press, 1999)
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Act February 18, 1873 c. 159 (17 Stat. 465)
Excluded “deposits of coal and iron” in Minnesota and Michigan
from the provisions of the Mining Act of 1872
Mineral Ownership
The right to explore and mine may be owned by the surface owner
Mineral Ownership
The right to explore and mine may be owned by the surface owner
Such rights may not be owned by the surface owner, in which case the mineral
interests are severed
• typically, mineral interests are retained when the surface is conveyed – in the deed
of conveyance the seller reserves all or part of the mineral rights
• less frequently, mineral interests are conveyed and the surface rights are retained
Sometimes surface ownership records indicate whether ownership of the mineral
interests are severed from the surface interests or not – often they do not
Mineral Ownership
The right to explore and mine may be owned by the surface owner
Such rights may not be owned by the surface owner, in which case the mineral
interests are severed
• typically, mineral interests are retained when the surface is conveyed – in the deed
of conveyance the seller reserves all or part of the mineral rights
• less frequently, mineral interests are conveyed and the surface rights are retained
Sometimes surface ownership records indicate whether ownership of the mineral
interests are severed from the surface interests or not – often they do not
Such severed mineral rights can be sold or donated by the owner
In Minnesota, they may also be lost through tax forfeiture
Mineral ownership in Minnesota
Kotz, Mark “Who Owns Minnesota’s Buried Treasure?” (Sept –Oct 1990 The
Minnesota Volunteer)
How Can I Locate Who Owns the Mineral Rights Under My Land? (MineralHub)
Your Land on Iron Range May Be Gold Mine — for Others (Duluth News Tribune April
2011)
Minnesota Landowners Worried that Mining Companies Will Use Eminent Domain to
Take Their Property (Oakdale Patch March 2012)
Mineral rights basics (BusinessNorth.com)
Minnesota’s Mining Laws
• Laws on state-owned or administered lands and mineral rights
• Laws on regulation of all exploration and mining activities
• Laws on taxation of mineral interests
• Other mineral related laws
Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Minerals
Managing state’s mineral resources
• Providing real estate services
• Managing mineral exploration and mine development on all state owned land
(surface, subsurface) to generate income (rents, royalty) for
• Permanent School Fund
• Permanent University Fund (PUF)
• Local communities
• General Fund
• Ensuring mineral development is environmentally sound
• Maintaining the real estate records
Minerals
Metallic Mineral Leasing
• Marty Vadis, DNR Division of Land and Minerals (Jan – Feb 2009 Minnesota
Conservation Volunteer)
Metallic Mineral Exploration Drilling
Preference rights lease for non-ferrous metallic mineral leasing
Iron Mining - Taconite
Minnesota Taconite Production Doubles in 2010 (Jan 3, 2011 CBS Minnesota)
Taconite is back (March 27, 2011 Iseek.org)
Hill-Rust- Mahoning Mine – a National Historic Landmark (Go Geometry)
U. S. Steel Mine Expansion Project
Taconite By-products
Stockpile Ownership (June 2001 DNR )
Recycling Mining Materials as Durable Aggregates (Oct. 2010 MNDoT)
The Establishment of a Permit to Mine Administration and Application Fee Schedule
(Jan. 15 2009 DNR)
MPR Story: Mainstreet Radio Special: Mining (Oct. 16, 2000)
Iron Range Region (Minnesota Historical Society)
Alanen Arnold R. “The “Locations” Company communities on Minnesota’s Iron
Ranges”
Mining Future
Governor’s Committee on Minnesota’s Mining Future (Sept. 2004)
Powerpoint presentations
•
•
•
Mining in Minnesota’s Iron Range: Past and Future Perspectives (Power, Thomas
University of Montana)
Power, Thomas “The Economic Role of Metal Mining in Minnesota: Past, Present,
and Future” (Oct. 2007 Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy)
Mining into the Future – Development in the Minnesota’s Mining Industry (June 9,
2009 Mining Minnesota)
Non-ferrous Mining
1981 Report to the Legislature on Copper -Nickel Development (Feb. 8, 1981 State
Planning Agency et al.)
Midwest Mining Rush Threatens Water: Part VI: Minnesota: This Land is Your Land,
This Land is My Land (Nov 22, 2010 Public Education Center)
New law's effect: Minnesota streamlines pollution (March 11, 2011 Minnpost.com)
Taconite and Asbestos
The classic Reserve Mining case (Aspen Law School)
Huffman, Thomas R. “Exploring the Legacy of Reserve Mining: What Does the Longest
Environmental Trial in History Tell Us About the Meaning of American
Environmentalism?” Journal of Policy History 12. 3 (2000)
Huffman, Thomas R . “Asbestos and the Reserve Mining Trial” Minnesota History Fall
2005
The legacy of the Reserve Mining case (Oct 29, 2003 MPR)
Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study (University MN)
Exposure to Commercial Asbestos in Northeastern Minnesota Iron Miners who
Developed Mesothelioma (Nov. 25, 2003 MN Dept of Health)
New cases of asbestos-related cancer to be included in University of Minnesota’s
Taconite Workers Health Study (March 30, 2010)
Health Risks of Taconite Mining
Do taconite fibers cause cancer? (MPR March 28, 2003)
Is Taconite Killing Miners? (MPR Aug 7, 2007)
Rule and Implementation Information for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (EPA)
Mesothelioma.net
Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study (University of Minnesota)
Two Taconite Minnesota Mining Operations Could Be Held Accountable for Exceeding
Asbestos Exposure Limits (Asbestos Network April 23, 2008)
Other Environmental Issues
Mercury and Mining in Minnesota (Oct. 15 2003)
National Steel Pellet Company Draft Voluntary Mercury Reduction Agreement (Oct 28,
2011)
Taconite Mining and Processing Industry Profile (Sept 2001 EPA)
Mine Restoration
Iron Ore And Taconite Mine Reclamation And Revegetation Practices On The Mesabi
Range In Northeastern Minnesota
The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private
entities
However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights
The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private
entities
However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so
How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record
The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private
entities
However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so
How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record
• under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state
trust lands)
– under surface still owned by state
– under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed
The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private
entities
However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so
How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record
• under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state
trust lands)
– under surface still owned by state
– under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed
• under land surface that is tax forfeited – may be unsevered or severed
The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private
entities
However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so
How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record
• under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state
trust lands)
– under surface still owned by state
– under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed
• under land surface that is tax forfeited – may be unsevered or severed
• under privately owned land surface – severed – and potentially tax forfeitable
The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private
entities
However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so
How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record
• under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state
trust lands)
– under surface still owned by state
– under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed
• under land surface that is tax forfeited – may be unsevered or severed
• under privately owned land surface – severed – and potentially tax forfeitable
Until recently and paradoxically, very little attention paid to the mineral estate
Over the years the ownership of severed minerals has become obscure and
fractionalized
Some interests have been divided among so many descendants of the original owner
that their fractional interests have become extremely small
Over the years the ownership of severed minerals has become obscure and
fractionalized
Some interests have been divided among so many descendants of the original owner
that their fractional interests have become extremely small
The question of severed minerals has never been addressed by the Minnesota
Supreme Court – the general rule in other parts of the country is that unless
otherwise stated in the severance deed, the mineral estate carries with it the right to
use so much of the surface as may be reasonably necessary to reach and remove
the minerals
Under this rule, the mineral owner has a right of entry or access to explore for and mine
minerals beneath the surface of the land
In Minnesota leases of state owned minerals require that a surface owner be
compensated for any damages to the surface which arise from mining activities of
the holder of the state mineral lease
Means that the owner of a state mineral lease can disturb the land surface owner!
Minnesota Statutes 93.01 Reservation of minerals and water powers (Laws 1889 c.22)
•
“The state hereby reserves for its own use all the iron, coal, copper, gold, and other
valuable minerals, and all water powers in or upon all lands which now or hereafter
may belong to it by virtue of any act of Congress” – lands donated to the state by
the United States
•
“This reservation shall not apply to lands granted or contracted to be conveyed by
the United States or by this state to aid in the construction of any railroad”
Carlson v Minnesota Land and Colonization Company 113 Minn. 361; 129 N.W. 768
(1911); Buck v Walker 115 Minn. 239; 132 N.W. 205 (1911)
Washburn v. Gregory 125 Minn. 491, 147 N.W. 706 (1914) the Minnesota Supreme
Court determined that a severed mineral interest is a interest in land, separate from
the surface and separately taxable – and separately tax forfeitable!!
Minnesota Statutes 93.06 Reservation of minerals under navigable lakes (1909)
•
•
•
•
all iron ores and other minerals on, in or under lands within this state which lie
beneath the waters of navigable lakes and rivers belong to the state
together with the right to enter upon such lands and explore for and mine and
remove such iron ore and other minerals
the state now has and since its organization has had the right to sell, lease, or
otherwise use or dispose of such mineral lands and such iron ores and other
minerals in the same manner as any other mineral lands, ores, or minerals
belonging to the state
the title of the state to such iron ore or other minerals, together with the right to
explore for, mine, or remove the same, shall not be affected by the subsequent
drying up of such lakes or rivers
In Washburn v. Gregory 125 Minn. 491, 147 N.W. 706 (1914) the Minnesota Supreme
Court determined that a severed mineral interest is a interest in land, separate from
the surface and separately taxable
Mineral thus do not forfeit if the overlying surface interest forfeits for nonpayment of
taxes
However, in practice, severed mineral interests have been valued and assessed for tax
purposes only if the value of the minerals has been determined through drilling
Deeds for Severed Minerals
The absence of any taxation of mineral interests owned separately from the surface,
except where drilling analysis is available, has encouraged the separation of
ownership of surface and mineral estates and resulted in the creation of hundreds
of thousands of acres of untaxed mineral estate lands which thus are immune from
tax forfeiture
Severed Mineral Interests Law
•
Because the ownership condition of many severed mineral interests was becoming
more obscure and fractionalized over time, impairing mineral development in the
state
•
It is in the public interest and serves a public purpose to identify and clarify these
interests
Minnesota Laws 1969 c 829 s 1; 1973 c 650 art 20 s 5; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1986 c
444; 2005 c 4 s 20
Did not apply to the following owners of mineral interests
•
•
•
the United States of America
the State of Minnesota
an American Indian tribe or band owning reservation lands in Minnesota
Minnesota Statutes 272.039 Legislative findings and conclusions
related to the taxation of minerals owned separately from the
surface (Laws 1973 c.650 art. 20 s 1)
“The legislature finds that a class of real property has been created which, although not
exempt from taxation, is not assessed for tax purposes and does not, therefore,
contribute anything toward the cost of supporting the governments which protect and
preserve the continued existence of the property”
Minnesota Statutes 272.039 Legislative findings and conclusions
related to the taxation of minerals owned separately from the
surface (Laws 1973 c.650 art. 20 s 1)
“The legislature finds that a class of real property has been created which, although not
exempt from taxation, is not assessed for tax purposes and does not, therefore,
contribute anything toward the cost of supporting the governments which protect and
preserve the continued existence of the property”
The legislature further finds that the identification of separately owned mineral interests
by taxing authorities requires title searches which are extremely burdensome and,
where no public tract index is available, prohibitively expensive
Minnesota Statutes 272.039 Legislative findings and conclusions
related to the taxation of minerals owned separately from the
surface (Laws 1973 c.650 art. 20 s 1)
“The legislature finds that a class of real property has been created which, although not
exempt from taxation, is not assessed for tax purposes and does not, therefore,
contribute anything toward the cost of supporting the governments which protect and
preserve the continued existence of the property”
The legislature further finds that the identification of separately owned mineral interests
by taxing authorities requires title searches which are extremely burdensome and,
where no public tract index is available, prohibitively expensive
This result is caused in part by the decision in Wichelman v. Messner 250 Minn. 88, 83
N.W. (2d) 800 (1957), where the so called "40 year law" was held inapplicable to
mineral interests owned separately from surface interest
The legislature finds that the province of Ontario in Canada, which has land ownership
patterns and mineral characteristics similar to that of Minnesota, has imposed a tax
of $.50 an acre on minerals owned separately from the surface since 1968, and
$.10 an acre before that
•
for the purpose of requiring mineral interests owned separately from surface
interests to contribute to the cost of government at a time when other interests in
real property are heavily burdened with real property taxes, the legislature
concludes that the taxation of severed mineral interests … is necessary and in the
public interest, and provides fair taxation of a class of real property which has
escaped taxation for many years – taxation
•
for the purpose of requiring mineral interests owned separately from surface
interests to contribute to the cost of government at a time when other interests in
real property are heavily burdened with real property taxes, the legislature
concludes that the taxation of severed mineral interests … is necessary and in the
public interest, and provides fair taxation of a class of real property which has
escaped taxation for many years – taxation
•
to provide adequate identification of mineral interests owned separately from the
surface and to prevent the continued escape from taxation of obscure and
fractionalized severed mineral interests – public record
From and after January 1, 1970, every owner of a severed mineral interest shall file for
record in the county recorder office or in the registrar office in the county where the
mineral interest is located a verified statement giving
•
•
•
•
the owner's address
interest in the minerals
the legal description of the property upon or beneath which the interest exists, and
the book and page number or the document number, in the records of the county
recorder or registrar of titles, of the instrument by which the mineral interest is
created or acquired
The owner had to do the work!!!
Minnesota Statutes 93.55 Forfeiture of severed mineral interest
If the owner of a mineral interest fails to file the verified statement required
•
•
before January 1, 1975 for interests owned on or before December 31, 1973
within of year after acquiring an interest not previously registered after December
31, 1973
The mineral interest shall forfeit to the state after notice and opportunity for hearing
provided in this section – forfeiture process
Minnesota Statutes 93.55 Forfeiture of severed mineral interest
If the owner of a mineral interest fails to file the verified statement required
•
•
before January 1, 1975 for interests owned on or before December 31, 1973
within of year after acquiring an interest not previously registered after December
31, 1973
The mineral interest shall forfeit to the state after notice and opportunity for hearing
provided in this section – forfeiture process
Before completing the hearing procedures the Commissioner of Natural Resources
may lease the severed mineral interest
Landowners fight state over lease of mineral rights (MPR, 2011)
Minnesota Supreme Court
Contos v Herbst 250 Minn. 88, 278 N.W.2d 732 (1979) (LexisNexis Academic)
The owners of severed mineral contested the constitutionality of legislation requiring
them to register their interests or forfeit them to the state
The court affirmed the district court finding that severed and unsevered mineral
interests were taxed in a uniform manner as required by Minn. Const. art. 10, § 1
and that there was sufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of the amount
of the tax
Because the severed mineral interests were generally older and fractionalized, the
court agreed that the registration by publication requirement was not unreasonable
and did not violate due process
The court concluded, however, that the forfeiture procedures violated due process
because the procedures did not provide the owners with notice or a hearing before
the forfeiture of their mineral interests even if the owners could be easily located
Alleged Status of Mineral Ownership
State Ownership of Mineral Interests
State owns both surface and mineral interests when the two real property classes have
not been severed
State Ownership of Mineral Interests
State owns both surface and mineral interests when the two real property classes have
not been severed
•
Surface acquired from the federal government under various federal statutes and
never conveyed
State Ownership of Mineral Interests
State owns both surface and mineral interests when the two real property classes have
not been severed
•
•
Surface acquired from the federal government under various federal statutes and
never conveyed
Surface acquired under tax forfeiture statutes – but how do we know that the
minerals – a separate taxable estate – became forfeit?
State Ownership of Mineral Interests
State owns both surface and mineral interests when the two real property classes have
not been severed
•
•
•
Surface acquired from the federal government under various federal statutes and
never conveyed
Surface acquired under tax forfeiture statutes – but how do we know that the
minerals – a separate taxable estate – became forfeit?
Surface acquired under statutes authorizing land surface acquisition – but how do
we know that the state acquired the mineral interest?
State Ownership of Mineral Interests
State owns both surface and mineral interests when the two real property classes have
not been severed
•
•
•
•
Surface acquired from the federal government under various federal statutes and
never conveyed
Surface acquired under tax forfeiture statutes – but how do we know that the
minerals – a separate taxable estate – became forfeit?
Surface acquired under statutes authorizing land surface acquisition – but how do
we know that the state acquired the mineral interest?
Special circumstances – lands submerged under public water
State Ownership of Severed Mineral Interests
State owns a mineral interest when it has been severed
•
State reserved the minerals when conveying title to the surface – after 1901
State Ownership of Severed Mineral Interests
State owns a mineral interest when it has been severed
•
State reserved the minerals when conveying title to the surface – after 1901
•
State only acquired title to the surface
– Under the tax forfeiture statutes
– Under statutes authorizing only – expressly? – land surface acquisition
State Ownership of Severed Mineral Interests
State owns a mineral interest when it has been severed
•
State reserved the minerals when conveying title to the surface – after 1901
•
State only acquired title to the surface
– Under the tax forfeiture statutes
– Under statutes authorizing only – expressly? – land surface acquisition
•
State may own a severed mineral interest when the mineral interest owners have
failed to record their interests, therefore the mineral interests are tax forfeitable
Minerals Interests on Trust Lands – fairly certain
Mineral Interests on Tax Forfeited Lands – fairly uncertain
Mineral Interests on Consolidated Conservation Lands – fairly
uncertain
Fairly certain
State-owned Severed Fractional Mineral Interests – fairly certain
Cave Ownership
Helpful Hints for the Cave Landowner
The Legal Aspects of Cave Ownership. Twenty-two states and Puerto Rico, and the
Cherokee Nation currently have laws that cover a variety of topics ranging from
definitions, protections of features, permits for excavation and scientific
investigation, vandalism, and liability
Most state cave laws state that it is illegal to remove or damage anything from a cave,
including rocks, formations, animals, or organisms
Cave & Karst Resources (National Park Service)
National Speleological Society