Legal Aspects of Geology

579 Pages·1983·10.177 MB·English

by  Ronald W. Tank (auth.)

LEGAL ASPECTS
OF GEOLOGY
LEGAL ASPECTS
OF GEOLOGY
W .
RONALD TANK
Lawrence University
Appleton, Wisconsin
PLENUM PRESS • NEW YORK AND LONDON
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Tank, Ronald Warren.
Legal aspects of geology.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Mining law-United States. 2. Water-Law and legislation-United States. 3.
Geologists - Legal status, laws, etc. - United States. I. Title.
KF1819.T36 1983 344.73'095 83-2246
ISBN-13: 978-1-4684-4378-3 e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4684-4376-9 347.30495
DOl: 10.1007/978-1-4684-4376-9
© 1983 Plenum Press, New York
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1983
A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation
233 Spring Street, New York, N.Y. 10013
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
To AUCE
PREFACE
This treatise is an outgrowth of a series of seminars and tutorials on selected
legal aspects of geology that were offered to several generations of undergraduate
students at Lawrence University. The offerings were in response to a keen interest
in how the law and legal institutions relate to the professional geologist. Much
of the student interest was undoubtedly sparked by the legal controversies as
sociated with the "environmental movement" that became so active during the
1970s and continues today to look to the law for the resolution of conflicting
goals. Other students were interested in the role allocated to law by society in
general, or were simply curious about law as a profession.
Existing published material did not meet my needs, and I had to rely on
"handouts" summarizing legal principles, reported appellate cases, and guest
lectures from the county bar association. The more formally prepared course
materials were edited by practicing attorneys and scholars in academia who
encouraged me to seek a publisher who might make the materials available to
a broader audience-an audience that might include not only students of the
law but also the professional geologist, geological engineers, planners, policy
makers, and attorneys, whether in industry, government, education, or private
practice, who want to know more about the relationship between law and geology.
There has been a conscious effort to anticipate and answer the questions
that the audience, coming upon the material without any background, might
be expected to raise. Since I am trying to reach a broad audience, some will
find certain sections too elementary. A practitioner of the law need not read
Part I-Introduction to Basic Legal Concepts, or the appendix on library research
and resources, but geologists, engineers, and planners should find this material
most useful. The geologist or geological engineer will be familiar with the
discussions on landslides, water regimes, and ore deposits, but those who are
not familiar with these topics will find them helpful in understanding some
conflicts over water rights, mining claims, or landslide losses.
Each of the legal topics includes an introduction to basic principles and
theory along with references to some of the "rules of law." The treatment is
meant to be instructive but not exhaustive. The case histories are meant to be
illustrative. They illustrate how one jurisdiction applied the law to the particular
facts in the case. Some cases show how the law must and does change to meet
Vll
viii PREFACE
new social, political, and economic needs. The treatise can be read with profit
without reference to the case histories, but as every good practitioner of the law
knows, no text contains "the law." For, as Thomas Bergin and Paul Haskell
remind us, "If the law is ever to be found, it will be in the wilderness of the
single instance-the case."
There are many aspects of the law that involve the geological sciences. The
three included in this treatise-water rights, mineral law, and surficial pro
cesses-are the most significant, if judged by the number of civil disputes that
are litigated. They are also the areas of most concern to the professional geologist
and to those whose work concerns natural resources. This is not to suggest that
forensic geology or some of the other aspects of engineering geology are un
important. Space simply does not permit every example.
A caveat to the reader. This treatise is not a do-it-yourself legal manual or
handbook. Legal problems require legally trained specialists. The cases, defi
nitions, laws, and other material directly related to the legal field in this work
are set forth by way of illustration in order to enlighten the reader as to which
issues have been addressed in the past by legal scholars and geologists in these
respective areas. The writer makes no assertion that any particular citation rep
resents the status of the law in the relevant field. The law is constantly changing
and adapting to the particular science or field that it addresses. All particular
legal questions arising in the mind of the reader with regard to practical circum
stances should be referred to competent attorneys in the appropriate specialty.
lowe debts of gratitude to many who have, in various ways, participated
in the creation of this book. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to those
students at Lawrence University who offered comments on the collection of
materials and cases that were included in the seminars on legal aspects of geology,
and to the guest lecturers who suggested the content of the chapters on basic
legal concepts. I am particularly grateful to Harriet Tippet, reference librarian,
for her assistance with the library research, and to the following persons who
were kind enough to read and comment on the initial draft of the manuscript:
Michael R. McCanna, Esq. (Part I), Professor Thomas E. Headrick (Part I),
Professor A. Dan Tarlock (Part II), Richard W. Harris, Esq. (Part III), and
Maurice Leon, law librarian (Appendix A). These people offered many con
structive suggestions but they are not responsible for the final treatment of the
treatise.
R.W.T.
CONTENTS
PART I. INTRODUCTION TO BASIC LEGAL CONCEPTS
I. THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM ................ 3
2. NEGLIGENCE AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY ........... 17
3. NUiSANCE .................................... 23
4. REAL PROPERTY ............................... 29
5. EMINE"IT DOMAIN, INVERSE CONDEMNATION,
AND POLICE POWER ............................ 55
6. THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE .................. 71
PART II. WATER RIGHTS LAW
7. WATER REGIMES AND WATER RIGHTS DOCTRI"IES .. 77
8. SURFACE WATER IN WATERCOURSES ............. 103
9. DIFFUSED SURFACE WATER ..................... 191
10. SUBSURFACE WATERS .......................... 207
II. SPRINGS ..................................... 275
PART III. MINERAL LAW
12. ORE GENESIS, CLASSIFICATIO"J,
AND EXPLOITATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 283
13. FEDERAL MINING LAWS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 295
14. THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 303
15. LOCATABLE, LEASABLE, AND SALABLE MINERALS. .. 325
16. DISCOVERY OF LOCATABLE MINERALS. . . . . . . . . . .. 335
17. LOCATION OF MINING CLAIMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 369
18. ASSESSMENT WORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 421
19. PATENT PROCEDURES ...................... .. .. 435
20. MINERAL LEASING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 451
21. LAW OF THS SEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 467
PART IV. SURFICIAL PROCESSES
22. LANDSLIDES AND SUBSIDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 481
23. ACCRETION, RELICTION, EROSIO:--':,
AND SUBMERGENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 527
IX
x CONTENTS
APPENDICES
A. LEGAL RESEARCH AND SOURCE MATERIALS. . . . . . .. 565
B. GLOSSARY OF TERMS .......................... 573
INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 581
LIST OF READINGS
4-1. MONCRIEF V. PASOTEX PETROLEm1 CO., 280 F. 2d 235
(1960) ..... ... . .... .................................. . 35
4-2. FICK V. WILSON, 349 S. W. 2d 622 (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4-3. COATS V. BROWN, 301 S.W. 2d 932 (1957)......... . ..... . . 42
4-4. SAUDER V. MID-CONTI:\"E'iT PETROLEUM CORP., 292 U.S.
272, 78 L.Ed. 1255 (1934). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5-1. PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. V. MAHON, 206 U.S. 393 (1922). . . 62
7-1. PIPER, A. AND THOMAS, H., 1958, "Hydrology and Water Law:
What Is Their Future Common Ground?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
8-1. MUENCH V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 261 Wis. 492, 53
N. W. 2d 514 (1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116
8-2. STATE V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 275 Wis. 112, 81
N.W. 2d 71 (1957) ..................................... 138
8-3. ANAHEIM UNION WATER CO. V. FULLER, 150 Cal. 327, 88 P.
978(1907) ............................................ 143
8-4. JONES V. CONN, 39 Or. 30,64 P. 855 (1901) ............... 150
8-5. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS V. YUST, 126 Colo. 289, 249 P.
2d15l(1952) .......................................... 159
8-6. IRWIN V. PHILLIPS, 5 Cal. 140 (1855) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163
8-7. KIRKV. STATE BOARD OF IRRIGATION, 90 Neb. 627,134 N.W.
167(1912) ............................................ 166
8-8. RE MANSE SPRING AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, 60 Nev. 280, 108 P.
2d 311 (1940). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 169
8-9. UNITED STATES V. HOLLAND, 373 F. Supp. 665 (1974) '" ... 175
9-1. STATE V. DEETZ, 66 Wis. 2d 1, 224 N.W. 2d 407 (1974)... .. 194
10-1. HUBER V. MERKEL, 117 Wis. 355,94 N.W. 354 (1903) ...... 220
10-2. STATE V. MICHELS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., 63 Wis.
2d 278, 217 N.W. 2d 339 and 219 N.W. 2d 308 (1974) .. .... 230
10-3. TEMPLETON V. PECOS VALLEY ARTESIAN CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT, 65 N.M. 59, 332 P. 2d 465 (1958) ........... . ... 246
10-4. ENDERS V. SINCLAIR REFINING CO., 220 Wis. 254, 263 N.W.
568(1936) ............................................ 255
10-5. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA V. JUPITER INLET CORP., Fla., 371 So.
2d663(1979) .......................................... 263
Xl
LIST OF READINGS
Xll
11-1. BRUMMUNDV. VOGEL, 184 Neb. 415, 168N.W. 2d24(1969) 276
14-1. STATE OF WYOMING v. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 489 (1921) 314
15-1. UNITED STATES v. MARY MATTEY, 67 I.D. 63 (1960) ........ 329
16-1. UNITED STATES v. CARLILE, 67 I.D. 417 (1960) ........ . ... 341
16-2. WESTERN STANDARD URA"iIUM CO. v. THURSTON, 355 P. 2d
377(1960) ............................................ 352
16-3. FOSTER v. SEATON, 271 F. 2d 836 (1959).................. 365
17-1. SANDERS v. NOBLE, 22 Mont. 110, 55 P. 1037 (1899)........ 376
17-2. GLOBE MINING CO. v. ANDERSON, 78 Wyo. 17,318 P. 2d
373(1957) ............................................ 396
17-3. COLLINS v. BAILEY, 22 Colo. App. 149, 125 P. 543 (1912) .... 410
18-1. NEW MERCUR MINING CO. V. SOUTH MERCUR MINING CO.,
102 Utah 131, 128 P. 2d 269 (1942) cert. denied 319 U.S. 753
(1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 425
19-1. CLIPPER MINI"iG CO. v. ELI MINI"iG AND LAND CO., 194
U.S. 220,48 L. Ed. 944 (1904)........................... 440
20-1. UDALL v. KING, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 397, 308 F. 2d 650
(1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 460
20-2. JANIS M. KOSLOSKY, 66 I.D. 384 (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 463
21-1. DEEPSEA VENTURES, INC., 1974, Notice of Discovery and
Claim of Exclusive Mining Rights, and Request for Diplomatic
Protection and Protection of Investment, by Deepsea Ventures,
~c ................................................... ~3
22-1. MASSEI v. LETTUNICH, 248 CA 2d 68, 56 Cal. Rept. 232
(1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 489
22-2. SWEENEY v. STONE, 265 CA 2d 693,71 Cal. Rept. 497 (1968) 494
22-3. ALBERS v. COUNTY OF Los A"iGELES, 62 CA 2d 258, 398 P.
2d 129 (1965). ... ... ...... ............. ................ 498
22-4. FINLEY v. TEETER STONE, INC., 251 Md. 428, 248 A. 2d 106
(1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 515
23-1. MANRY v. ROBISON, 122 Tex. 213, 56 S.W. 2d 438 (1932) ... 530
23-2. MIRAMAR CO. V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, 143 P. 2d 1 (1943) 546