Accreted Lands: Enlarging or Diminishing the Mineral Estate

摘要

Plaintiffs, Davidson and J.T. Harris, each owned riparian tracts that abut the Arkansas River. In 1957 and 1964, respectively, plaintiffs each execute oil and gas leases to Stephens Production Company (Stephens). Plaintiffs' leases provide for a l/8th royalty and expressly state that accreted lands would be subject to the leases. The bed of the Arkansas River is leased to Gulf Oil Corporation by the State of Arkansas under an oil and gas lease that provides for a l/8th royalty. Stephens establishes production on a pooled unit that includes plaintiffs' and the State's tract. Plaintiffs' leases are amended in 1990 to provide for a 3/16th royalty. The State lease remains at a l/8th royalty. Over the course of many years of lease operations, the Arkansas River shifts eastward in its course, causing accretion to the plaintiffs' lands. After obtaining quitclaim deeds from the State of Arkansas to the accreted lands, that confirms their title pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 22-5-405, plaintiffs sue Stephens, the defendant, for their 3/16th lease royalty on the production from the accreted lands. The trial court grants summary judgment to the defendant, ruling the State lease providing for a l/8th royalty remains effective for the accreted land. Held: reversed. Title to accreted land vests in the contiguous landowner, under the common law doctrine of accretion which is codified in Ark Code Ann. 22-5-404. Nor does the accreted land run with the state lease under the lease provision that expressly subjects any subsequent conveyance of the leased land to the lease. Under both the common law doctrine of accretion and Ark. Code Ann. 22-5-404, when land accretes, ownership vests automatically in the riparian landowner. The accreted land was not transferred by conveyance. Nor is it acreage that is still being contributed by the State to the drilling unit and, thus, the State lease is no longer applicable to the accretion lands. Both severed and non-severed mineral interests are subject to the doctrine of accretion. Nor is there an exception in the doctrine for "leasehold working interests."