Call Our Firm:   605.385.0330

Commercial Transactions & Litigation, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, & Energy Law

Author Archive

Here are my most recent posts

Is the Trump Option Available In SD For Condemnation?

Posted on: February 13th, 2016
by David Ganje

Is the Trump Option Available In SD For Condemnation?

Eminent domain is one of the toughest and most controversial legal powers available to a government, but the South Dakota legislature has so far failed to manage it properly. Eminent domain allows a governmental body to convert privately owned land to another use, often over the objections of the current landowner. The Donald Trump Option is the right of a private party to use eminent domain.  This is done by developers, pipeline companies and hotel builders alike. This process is commonly known as a ‘taking’ or ‘condemning the land.’ There are rules, of course. A landowner must be paid “just compensation” for the condemnation of his land. Further, the land that is to be taken may only be taken to further a beneficial public use.

The ability to exercise eminent domain is so powerful that it almost always remains the final legal option. The use of eminent domain is not solely limited to governments. Private parties as well as corporations may exercise the immense power of eminent domain. For example, South Dakota law states that “Any person may exercise the right of eminent domain…to acquire as a public use any property or other rights necessary for application of water to beneficial uses.” Private parties as well as corporations may exercise the immense power of eminent domain.

The law allows a private party to manage water rights by a taking. The statute states, “except as otherwise provided…no person may appropriate the waters of this state for any purpose without first obtaining a permit to do so.” The power of eminent domain may used if the taker puts water to a beneficial use. For this reason, a party may not successfully exercise eminent domain without first having a water permit.

This right to take comes into play when a party seeks access to land he doesn’t own in order to access water. What is a beneficial use? South Dakota law is intentionally vague on this subject. It says beneficial use is the use of water “that is reasonable and useful and beneficial to the appropriator, and at the same time is consistent with the interests of the public.” For courts, this is a balancing test, as opposed to a concrete definition. The question in eminent domain cases, then, is whether or not a proposed use of water fits this vague legislative definition of ‘beneficial use.’ The Supreme Court has implied that it can. As a result, eminent domain cases involving water can span an enormous berth of cases, with those claiming eminent domain seeking water for everything from irrigation to oil extraction.

There is irony in too much of what the South Dakota legislature does. Counties and municipalities are forbidden from using eminent domain for the benefit of a private party. Yet the field is wide open for private parties to use eminent domain for a private party’s benefit.

Whether it is a taking to obtain water rights or land for a pipeline, the matter of ‘just compensation’ to be given to the landowner is paramount. I have advocated in prior blog articles the need to revisit the matter of just compensation. This issue applies to a government or private taking.  The ‘valuation process’ should be changed.  The SD Supreme Court has stated that the state legislature has the authority to create the method of compensation in a condemnation proceeding.  The State Constitution is interestingly stronger from a landowner’s perspective than is the US Constitution on the issue of eminent domain.

State Senator Monroe, or his speechwriter, state that that my argument (and that of 5 states and counting as of 2012) is wrongheaded. He has stated, “We have well established legal mechanisms to compensate property owners and treat them fairly.”  Good negotiations by a landowner may result in more favorable compensation. But the playing field should be level between the land taker, who has the power of the law to take, and the landowner.  Senator Monroe’s refusal to look at the issue is a belittlement of efforts to protect property rights.

I do not know whether the Senator has had a pipeline run through his property under an eminent domain proceeding. A taking is not a normal market transaction because the landowner has no choice.  A landowner can’t walk away from the table. The legal process of taking private property is just as important as the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the protection against unreasonable search and seizures.

There are several problems with South Dakotan condemnation law. The law should be revised to include written disclosures following the requirements of Wyoming law. Wyoming law provides new rights for landowners in all condemnation proceedings, whether initiated by the government or private parties. SD law should require that the taker show the details of the proposed project plan and the written basis behind any compensation offer. An additional provision that should be changed is the legal taking procedure. Currently the procedure does not allow the landowner the recovery of all of his court costs, appraisal costs, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees even in the event he should prevail in the case. This forces landowners to fear spending money defending their own land, something that a citizen should never have to do. SD law should provide that a landowner is entitled to an award of all court costs, appraisal costs, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees if the taker failed to negotiate in good faith, or if the compensation awarded by the court or jury exceeds the amount of money offered by the taker to the landowner. Until then, the playing field will remain skewed in favor of takers.

David Ganje. David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices in the area of natural resources, environmental and commercial law in South Dakota and North Dakota. The website is Lexenergy.net

Does Eminent Domain Apply to Water Rights?

Posted on: February 7th, 2016
by David Ganje

Does Eminent Domain Apply to Water Rights?

Eminent domain is one of the toughest and most controversial legal powers available to a government. The doctrine of eminent domain allows a governmental body to convert privately owned land to another use, often over the objections of the current landowner. This process is commonly known as ‘condemning the land.’ There are rules, of course. A private landowner must be paid “just compensation” for the condemnation of their land. I have written several blog articles regarding the matter of just compensation. Further, the land that is to be taken must be taken to further a beneficial public use.

The ability to exercise eminent domain is so powerful that it almost always remains a final legal option left to state and government bodies. In North Dakota, a little-known law allows private citizens to exercise eminent domain. North Dakota law states that “The United States, or any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association [may] exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire for a public use any property or rights existing when found necessary for the application of water to beneficial uses.” Private citizens as well as corporations may exercise the immense power of eminent domain – but only when it comes to using water for a beneficial use.

North Dakota evaluates whether or not a citizen is able to put water to a beneficial use through a permit system. The law requires “any person, before…appropriating waters of the state…, shall first secure a water permit from the state engineer.” There are few sources of water (groundwater, surface water, river water, etc.) within the limits of the state that are not subject to such a water permit. The power of eminent domain can only be harnessed in order to put water to a beneficial use. For this reason, a citizen cannot successfully exercise eminent domain without first having a water permit.

The right of eminent domain may come into play when a private citizen or corporation wants to use water for a beneficial use, but needs access to land they don’t own in order to access water. What is a beneficial use? North Dakota law is intentionally vague on this subject. It says beneficial use is the use of water for “a purpose consistent with the best interest of the people of the state.”

Traditionally the landowner who desires the use of a water source, having first secured a state permit, will negotiate an easement with the landowner who owns the land on which the water sits. But this does not always work out. Such was the case in Mougey Farms v. Kaspari, a 1998 North Dakota Supreme Court case. The plaintiff, Mougey, owned farmland neighboring the defendant Kaspari’s land. Kaspari’s land also bordered the Sheyenne River. Mougey wanted to use the Sheyenne River as a water supply to irrigate his land. To that purpose Mougey approached Kaspari to negotiate a lease of his land in order to build a water transport system connecting Mougey’s irrigation system to the Sheyenne River. Kaspari agreed, the two signed a lease, and the irrigation system was built across Kaspari’s land without incident. The lease began in 1979 and continued for almost seventeen years.

In 1996 Kaspari informed Mougey that the lease would not be renewed, and Mougey would no longer be allowed to transport water from the Sheyenne River to Mougey’s farmland. This left Mougey without a source of water for irrigation. Mougey brought suit with an eminent domain claim against Kaspari’s land – in other words, he brought a suit to condemn the part of Kaspari’s land on which the water pipeline stood, asking for the right to continue piping water from the river to his irrigation system. Though this argument was rejected in the lower court, the North Dakota Supreme Court held that “irrigation of farmland under a perfected water permit issued by the State Engineer is a beneficial use of water consistent with the best interests of the people of North Dakota, which we conclude satisfies the ‘public use’ requirement.” The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that a private citizen could exercise the power of eminent domain in order to condemn part of his neighbor’s land, so long as the condemnation was in support of an approved public use of water.

The law lays out what public uses trigger the right of eminent domain. It states, “oil, gas, coal, and carbon dioxide pipelines and works” and the plants for supplying the above, together with “lands, buildings, and all other improvements” needed to for the purpose of “generating, refining, regulating, compressing, transmitting, or…development and control” are all public uses capable of triggering eminent domain.

The question is whether or not use of water fits a category. Is the use one that supports “generating, refining, regulating, compressing, transmitting,” or “development and control” of oil and/or natural gas? This issue may be considered regarding one of the most important uses of water in the oil and gas industry, hydraulic fracturing. There are parallels that can be drawn between the use of water for irrigation seen in Mougey Farms and the use of water for hydraulic fracturing.

Energy developers and landowners should be aware of this eminent domain statute and the possibility of its use. Both parties need to remember that when water rights are involved in a public use, the prospect of eminent domain is conceivable. The North Dakota Supreme Court teaches us that the ‘eminent domain of water statute’ allows individuals or companies to acquire for public use property when found necessary for using water for beneficial purposes.

David Ganje. David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices in the area of natural resources, environmental and commercial law in South Dakota and North Dakota. The website is Lexenergy.net

In North Dakota you can talk to the dead

Posted on: January 27th, 2016
by David Ganje

In North Dakota one can give legal notice by mail to a deceased individual, even though he long ago went to that great oil patch in the sky. It is something out of a Charles Dicken’s novel. You can communicate and give notice to the dead. A landowner seeking to claim mineral interests may recover the deceased’s mineral interests by giving notice by US mail to an address long ago abandoned — and legally so, according to the Dormant Mineral Act.

The North Dakota Supreme Court, in ruling on the Dormant Mineral Act, stated that “…no reasonable inquiry was required where the surface owner mailed the notice of lapse to the mineral interest owners’ address which was of record in 2007, even though the mineral interest owners had died in 1980 and 1999, respectively.” When an individual who owned mineral interests in North Dakota dies, they and their heirs may be out of luck if death never kept up the “current address” in the county recorder’s office.

The Supreme Court in an important recent case called Capps also stated, “…the address of record need not be the mineral interest owner’s correct address for the mailing of the notice of lapse to satisfy the statutory requirement.” In other words, a landowner may serve a notice to recover mineral interests by US mail when mailed to the deceased’s last address in the records and thereby obtain minerals formerly owned by the deceased.

Both the legislature and the courts are attempting to make it easier for surface owners to clear title and reclaim lost mineral rights. The Supreme Court in Capps held that “this Court made it clear that when the mineral interest owners of record are deceased, the notice must still be mailed to the address of the deceased owners of record.” In my practice I have done this. The postman must think I am nuts. This rule derives from the intent to encourage mineral development and extraction.

The Court ruled that the surface owner was not required to conduct a reasonable inquiry into an actual address of a mineral owner even when the owner knew they were deceased. The Court determined that it was immaterial whether the surface owner had actual knowledge of the death of the party notified by mail the party who was the record owner of the mineral interests and the person to whom the statutory notices had been mailed. The Court stated that any heirs of the deceased would have received notice if the deceased had recorded notice of their current addresses. The Court also held that the constitutional safeguards of due process and adequate notice do not apply to the non-litigation Dormant Mineral Act used by the landowners in the Capps case.

The Capps case illustrates the growing body of law that makes it easier to develop and reclaim mineral rights.

David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices in the area of natural resources, environmental and commercial law in South Dakota and North Dakota. View the original article at the Bismarck Tribune – Brakken Breakout

Solar Agreements In New York State

Posted on: January 27th, 2016
by David Ganje

Solar Agreements In New York State
By David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices

Recently new solar collection projects are appearing in Sullivan and surrounding counties in New York. Solar collection systems are not new to the area or state, but are becoming more feasible because of technology and government support. Solar agreements with landowners are a viable economic opportunity for landowners but are nevertheless, at the same time, what I call a ‘second marriage’ of the landowner.

I suggest landowners review an article on the web found at the following link: http://www.wiseenergy.org/Energy/Leaseholder.pdf
The article discusses some of the legal and economic issues landowners and farmers should consider when contracting with a solar energy company.

The long-standing questions of preserving property rights while giving up other rights are addressed in the article. Of course a landowner should not rely on web articles as formal legal advice but informing oneself of the many issues is important.

While I am a pro solar energy development person, I also maintain that property rights are more essential to address in any long term agreement than the immediate economic benefits of having solar on one’s property.

Minneapolis Star Tribune – N.D. oil sinks to $20 per barrel

Posted on: January 16th, 2016
by David Ganje

N.D. oil sinks to $20 per barrel with more bankruptcies expected as drilling activity declines - Photo by JIM GEHRZ

N.D. oil sinks to $20 per barrel with more bankruptcies expected as drilling activity declines

More bankruptcies are expected as drilling declines due to low prices.
By David Shaffer Star Tribune

Oil industry experts have been making dire predictions of $20 per barrel oil. In North Dakota, they’re now reality, prompting warnings of more bankruptcies and less drilling in 2016.

Although the U.S. domestic crude oil benchmark is higher — $29.64 per barrel — Bakken producers must sell at a discount because of the region’s limited oil pipelines and the higher cost of alternate shipping methods.

On Friday, North Dakota light sweet crude dropped to $20 per barrel at the wellhead, the lowest price since 2002, the state Department of Mineral Resources said. That’s one-fifth of what North Dakota producers got in early 2012, when the Bakken oil boom was at its peak.

Now, just 49 drilling rigs are operating in the state, less than a quarter of the number at the peak.

The department’s director, Lynn Helms, said the state’s oil industry is “running on empty” and quoted a verse from Jackson Browne’s song of that name during his monthly “Director’s Cut” conference call.

“We are down in the bottom of the bottom of the tank in terms of cash flow and capital,” Helms said of the state’s oil producers, two of which are in bankruptcy.
Helms said he expects another company to file bankruptcy shortly, and four or five more failures could be down the road. He didn’t name the companies.

“We have looked at … production, wells and situations and tentatively think there are four or five more [companies] at these oil prices that are going to run to the end of their financial rope by the end of 2016,” said Helms.

Seven of the 10 largest North Dakota oil producers reported losses in the third quarter, including the top three, Whiting Petroleum, Continental Resources and Hess Corp.

Two smaller producers, Samson Resources of Tulsa, Okla., and American Eagle Energy, filed for bankruptcy reorganization last year.

Despite the grim outlook, North Dakota reported a 0.4 percent increase in oil production for November, to nearly 1.18 million barrels per day. Natural gas production also rose slightly. The state’s peak oil production was more than 1.2 million barrels per day in December 2014.

But Helms said that at current crude oil prices, the number of drilling rigs could drop to 30 in 2016.

At that rate, North Dakota would barely stay above 1 million barrels per day at the end of 2016, and eventually would fall below that level, he added.

Oil prices also are affecting how much crude is shipped on oil trains, many of which pass through Minnesota on their way to East Coast refineries. About 41 percent of the state’s oil moved on trains in November, down from 47 percent in October, said Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority, which tracks crude oil shipping.

Most of North Dakota oil now is being shipped to market via pipelines, a reversal of earlier trends that favored rail. The economics of oil trains hinge partly on the price of oil on U.S. coasts being several dollars higher than the midcontinent price. Thanks to that price difference, refiners have been willing to pay the extra cost of shipping Bakken oil by rail.

But Kringstad said the differential “has essentially been eliminated,” a change driven partly by the revival of U.S. oil exports. “We expect that differential to be negligible for the near term,” he said, making the economics of crude-by-rail more challenging.

Helms said one of the state’s largest producers believes oil prices will recover later in 2016, a reference to recent comments by Harold Hamm, chief executive of Continental Resources. Hamm told the Wall Street Journal this week that he expects crude oil to double in price by the end of the year because supplies won’t keep up with demand.

If the gloomier outlook holds true, and more North Dakota producers file for bankruptcy, it could affect royalty recipients and vendors beyond the state’s borders, said David Ganje, a Rapid City, S.D., attorney who practices natural resources law in North Dakota and South Dakota.

“It is a very diverse industry and 48 percent of the royalty owners live out of state,” added Ganje, who said he has represented royalty recipients in Minnesota, Wisconsin and other states.

Although royalty holders have legal protections, he said, bankruptcy cases can slow down payments on oil and gas leases. Often, the oil producer in bankruptcy tries to retain the leases, reorganize and keep operating, he added. Sometimes the leases are sold, which can benefit royalty recipients if the new owner is better capitalized, he said.