Law Defining Mineral Ownership Under Lake Sakakawea Constitutional -- Dickinson Press -- March 6, 2019

Link here. Data points:

• this was a "new" North Dakota law
• the law was supposed to better define oil and gas ownership under Lake Sakakwea
• the law was found to be constitutional -- East Central Judicial District judge
• lawsuit brought by Rep Marvin Nelson, D-Rolla, former governor candidate Paul Sorum and others
• taxpayers argued that they were seeking to prevent the state from "giving away" $2 billion in oil and gas mineral rights in coming years," challenging the law as unconstitutional
• lawyers said it was not a giveaway but rather a process to define the boundary of the state's mineral rights
• the law ought to clarify ownership of minerals under Lake Sakakawea through a review of the historic ordinary high water mark of the Missouri River as it existed before the Garrison Dam
• the state of North Dakota prevailed
• the law is constitutional

However:

• the second portion of the ruling fell in favor of the taxpayers
• the law would reduce state revenues by $205 million by refunding oil royalty, rent and bonus payments
• the judge said that applying the law retroactively to oil and gas revenues earned from wells drilled since 2006 is unconstitutional
• the statute of limitations: three years
• the court preserved $205 million for the state taxpayers

Unclear

• whether the ruling meant that the state would have to be refund payments from the past three years