EEE Minerals, LLC v. State of North Dakota, No. 22-2159 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
EEE Minerals, LLC, and a Trustee for The Vohs Family Revocable Living Trust, sued the State of North Dakota, the Board of University and School Lands, and the Board’s commissioner in a dispute over mineral interests in McKenzie County, North Dakota. Plaintiffs alleged that state law related to mineral ownership was preempted by federal law and that the defendants had engaged in an unconstitutional taking of the plaintiffs’ mineral interests. Plaintiffs sought damages, an injunction, and declaratory relief. The district court dismissed the action.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs contend that the Flood Control Act impliedly preempts the North Dakota statute because the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” The court explained that it is not convinced that the State’s determination of a high-water mark, and the attendant settling of property rights under state law, stands as an obstacle to accomplishing the objectives of the Flood Control Act. The court wrote that the interests of the United States and the goals of the Flood Control Act are unaffected by a dispute between the State and a private party over mineral rights that were not acquired by the federal government.
Further, the court explained that Plaintiffs have not established that the United States will be prevented from flooding or inundating any land covered by the 1957 deed in which the State claims ownership of mineral interests under state law. The Flood Control Act would not dictate that property rights be assigned to Plaintiffs.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Plaintiffs alleged the State had taken mineral rights from them in violation of the Fifth Amendment; North Dakota Century Code Sec. 61-33, 1-01 to -07 is not preempted by the federal Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 701 c-1 (1938); the State's action under North Dakota law to determine a high water mark for the Missouri River does not interfere with the objectives of the Flood Control Act; plaintiffs claim that the State took their mineral rights without just compensation is barred by the Eleventh Amendment; equitable relief was unavailable to enjoin an alleged taking of private property where, as here, a remedy at law is available through a suit for just compensation in state court; the complaint did not allege that the Commissioner of University and School Lands was sued in his individual capacity and he is deemed to have been sued in his official capacity; money damages are not available against him in his official capacity as Commissioner of University and School Lands.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.