27 Aug By Kyle Williams: Who Owns the Minerals Beneath North Dakota’s Rivers? State v. Leland and the Law of Navigable Waterways

State ex rel. State Eng’r v. Leland

A recent North Dakota Supreme Court decision has provided further clarification to an issue with implications for landowners, oil and gas operators, and the state itself: who owns the minerals beneath North Dakota’s lakes, rivers and streams? In State ex rel. State Eng’r v. Leland, 2026 ND 99, 36 N.W.3d 522, decided in May 2026, the Court addressed competing ownership claims to lands along the Yellowstone River near North Dakota’s border with Montana. The dispute was ultimately decided by the determination of whether certain parcels were deemed to be a navigable waterway, a state-owned island, or private property formed through natural processes.

The case involved two contested tracts of land, being the “West Bank” and the “North Island.” The district court held that the Yellowstone River was navigable at the time North Dakota first entered the Union and that the State owned the West Bank because it had formed as an in-channel island that later attached to the western shore. The North Dakota Supreme Court found, however, that the State did not own the North Island, concluding that the island developed outside the riverbed and was separated from the shore by avulsion—a sudden, erosive event. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the State’s lack of ownership over the North Island, but reversed the lower court’s ruling as to ownership of the West Bank, ultimately deciding that the State owned neither tract. The decision underscores the fact-intensive nature of waterway ownership disputes and the importance of historical evidence about how land formations developed.

Navigable Waters

Leland illustrates the broader framework governing mineral ownership beneath North Dakota’s waterways. Under the equal-footing doctrine, North Dakota took absolute title to the beds of navigable waters within its borders when it entered the Union in 1889.  The State holds these sovereign lands in trust for the public, primarily to protect navigation but also to support recreation, fishing, and other public uses.  “Navigable waters” has been defined as those that were, in fact, navigable at statehood and could be used as highways for commerce in customary water-borne trade.

The State’s title extends only to lands below the ordinary high water mark of navigable waterways, being the line where continuous water presence prevents terrestrial vegetation and restricts growth to aquatic species. Under most circumstances, islands and accumulations that form within the beds of navigable waterways belong to the State unless there is title or prescriptive rights to the contrary. Additionally, lands established to have formed through riparian accretions or relictions, which result in gradual additions to the shoreline, are considered to be above the ordinary high water mark and are thus not considered to be State owned.

Waterways determined to have been non-navigable at statehood follow different rules under North Dakota law. For such waterways, the State does not hold title to the minerals beneath the waterway, rather the  adjacent landowners typically own to the center of the stream, river, or lake.

The result is a complex legal landscape where ownership depends on historical navigability, the location of the ordinary high and low water marks, and whether land formed gradually or within the channel of a navigable river. For mineral owners and operators, Leland simply reinforces that these determinations require careful analysis of specific facts and historical conditions when dealing with mineral ownership in and around North Dakota’s many waterways.

By Kyle Williams, Shareholder at KMD Law

References:

State ex rel. State Eng’r v. Leland, 2026 ND 99, 36 N.W.3d 522.

N.D. Cent. Code, § 47-01-15

N.D. Cent. Code, § 61-33-01