Surface owner vs. mineral owner - or ''They can't do that, can they. ''

Journal Article · Sat Jan 01 04:00:00 EST 1983 · Public Land Resour. Law Dig.; (United States)

OSTI ID:5430514

Truhe, M D

Surface mining laws in South Dakota can put the rights of the surface owner in conflict with those of the mineral developer if the surface is owned by a private party. The author discusses the origin of severed estates, minerals owned privately or by government entities, theories of recovery for damages, and types and measures of damages. The trend of the law in these areas suggests that the historical concept of the dominance of the mineral estate is still alive and well, although the courts have restricted and qualified those rights through the doctrine of reasonable necessary use, the due regard or accommodation doctrine, the least destructive alternative approach, and the balancing of the respective interests of the surface and mineral owners. The courts use these qualifying doctrines to soften the dominant mineral estate concept by applying equitable principles on an individual care basis.

• Research Organization: Lynn, Jackson, Shultz and Lebrun, P.C., Rapid City, SD
• OSTI ID: 5430514
• Journal Information: Public Land Resour. Law Dig.; (United States), Journal Name: Public Land Resour. Law Dig.; (United States) Vol. 20:2; ISSN PRLDD
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY
290400* -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Energy Resources
293000 -- Energy Planning & Policy-- Policy
Legislation
& Regulation
DAMAGE
FEDERAL REGION VIII
HISTORICAL ASPECTS
LAND OWNERSHIP
LAWS
LEGAL ASPECTS
MINERAL RIGHTS
MINING
NORTH AMERICA
OWNERSHIP
PUBLIC LANDS
SOUTH DAKOTA
SURFACE MINING
USA