Updates
Later, 5:31 p.m. CDT: lots of issues here and folks have strong feelings on both sides; I don't have a dog in this fight. I may not have all the facts, but it is what it is. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out. To say the least. And the obvious.
Original Post
Top stories: here.
2017: here.
The most egregious story to come out of the Bakken: North Dakota State wants a "stay" on the mineral rights case. This was the case:
The state legislature, in an attempt to resolve disputed mineral rights that are hampering development of minerals in the Lake Sakakawea area, had commissioned a study of the historical, high water mark of the Missouri River prior to building Garrison Dam, which created Lake Sakakawea. Their legislation would also restrict the state’s mineral rights to that historical ordinary high water mark.
Williston Herald, April 29, 2018. New
Update, The Bismarck Tribune -- September 21, 2018.
At this site, there are several links. The two first two links are the ones you are most likely interested in. The "word document" pdf will take a few minutes to download; it is 223 pages long. There is also a PowerPoint presentation which also loads very slowly. The data is very, very well done -- from my cursory view.
It is funny. Forgetting about the mineral rights for a moment, prospective landowners don't want land that is underwater; whereas prospective sellers will downplay the amount of land they are trying to sell that is likely to flood or is not particularly useful -- unless one plans to raise ducks -- because it is underwater.
Some years ago, this topic introduced me to the "riparian" biome -- and something our oldest granddaughter now knows well. LOL.
Also, this has nothing to do with "water rights" -- the allotment of water partitioned out to surface owners along the body of water.
Update, The Bismarck Tribune -- September 21, 2018.
At this site, there are several links. The two first two links are the ones you are most likely interested in. The "word document" pdf will take a few minutes to download; it is 223 pages long. There is also a PowerPoint presentation which also loads very slowly. The data is very, very well done -- from my cursory view.
It is funny. Forgetting about the mineral rights for a moment, prospective landowners don't want land that is underwater; whereas prospective sellers will downplay the amount of land they are trying to sell that is likely to flood or is not particularly useful -- unless one plans to raise ducks -- because it is underwater.
Some years ago, this topic introduced me to the "riparian" biome -- and something our oldest granddaughter now knows well. LOL.
Also, this has nothing to do with "water rights" -- the allotment of water partitioned out to surface owners along the body of water.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.