Texans Receive First Notices of Land Condemnation for Trump’s Border Wall

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Got sources and examples for this claim?  I admit I do not know.

The govt just needs the surface to perform its operations, not the subsurface.  No example needed.

In land rights, the surface is separate from the subsurface, which includes rights to minerals.  A very common separation.

[thackney]

So in this case a border property would be taken for the security wall on the surface, but mineral rights would not follow?

Wouldn't that suggest directional drilling to reach those minerals?

Keep in mind, they are now only taking a narrow strip.  Even traditional vertical drilling drains an area greater than the wellpad footprint.  Typically considered 40 square acres means a 1/8 mile in each direction (1/4 mile square is 40 acres)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So in this case a border property would be taken for the security wall on the surface, but mineral rights would not follow?

Wouldn't that suggest directional drilling to reach those minerals?

Yes, typically.  Same way access is mostly made to oil and gas underlying lakes and rivers.

[thackney]

Yep, I'm missing the point...

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/customs-and-border-protection-announces-reopening-los-ebanos-ferry

The Los Ebanos, TX International Ferry crossing has resumed daily operations as of Sunday, June 7, 2015.  The ferry crossing had been closed since May 24 due to high water levels stemming from the water release by Mexican authorities of their water reservoirs.

Customs and Border Protection officers are on site to process international travelers returning from Mexico and the ferry is fully staffed with its operators providing service to the public.

Fully staffed, 7 days a week doesn't sound like only there on occasion.

http://www.progresstimes.net/news/general-interest/2738-los-ebanos-ferry-to-get-new-port-facility-following-flood.html

 They built a new Customs and Border Protection building in 2013.

[truth_seeker]

Okay, I got it. I am somewhat familiar with California directional drilling, both from onshore, and from platforms.

So in the current Texas border example, while the surface and mineral rights may be the same, they would be severed if the landowner and fedgov agree to do so.

Access across landowner's adjacent roperty may be needed to get to the wall and a margin to patrol, maintain.



@IsailedawayfromFR  @thackney

[Elderberry]

Further up the border, we used to go to a ranch outside of Valentine. We would drive into Mexico via an uncontrolled crossing to (best guess) Ejido Emilio Carranza. The river was dry and I never saw Border Patrol there. Some times we'd see Federales parked in a truck on their side of the dry river bed.

[thackney]

So in the current Texas border example, while the surface and mineral rights may be the same, they would be severed if the landowner and fedgov agree to do so.

Trying to give clarity, not trying to nit-pick.

Surface and Mineral rights are not the same, but they may or may not be owned by the same person.

It is always easier if eminent domain proceedings are not required.  If the federal government and the landowner agree, anything may be included in the sale, including adjacent land, mineral rights, etc.

If the landowner refuses, and the property can only be obtained by an eminent domain proceeding, the government is only going to take was it needed for the project, adjacent property, mineral rights will not be awarded.

So the property owner may get a better deal up front, selling land on the other side of the wall that becomes difficult to access.  I see no reason to ever sell the mineral rights unless offered enough money.  Little reason for the government to buy them.

[thackney]

Further up the border, we used to go to a ranch outside of Valentine. We would drive into Mexico via an uncontrolled crossing to (best guess) Ejido Emilio Carranza. The river was dry and I never saw Border Patrol there. Some times we'd see Federales parked in a truck on their side of the dry river bed.

How long ago was that?

[Elderberry]

In the 70's

[Sanguine]

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/customs-and-border-protection-announces-reopening-los-ebanos-ferry

Fully staffed, 7 days a week doesn't sound like only there on occasion.

http://www.progresstimes.net/news/general-interest/2738-los-ebanos-ferry-to-get-new-port-facility-following-flood.html

 They built a new Customs and Border Protection building in 2013.

Yes, that is new to me.  I haven't been there since before 2013.

[truth_seeker]

Wiki on "mineral rights:"

It states further, that a mineral right also includes rights to use the surface, in order to access the subsurface minerals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_rights

[Suppressed]

Trump has always loved eminent domain

I quite enjoy the proposal to seize Trump Tower under eminent domain, to save the taxpayers money on protection costs for the Firsts.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Wiki on "mineral rights:"

It states further, that a mineral right also includes rights to use the surface, in order to access the subsurface minerals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_rights

That is correct.

The owner of the subsurface, if different than the owner of the surface, has the right to access appropriate surface property to access the minerals owned.

How this is deployed has many facets. One cannot just demand a certain surface he deems he wishes to have.  It must be a reasonable assertion of surface usage. 

In the example you brought up on directional drilling, if those minerals could be reasonably accessed by that means, there may not be any need for the mineral owner to demand any usage of the overlying surface of those minerals.

I would not depend upon Wikipedia to learn more about mineral and surface rights.

There are plenty of resources related directly to these, mostly done my professionals in this area called Landmen.  The Association of Petroleum Landmen has lots of material you can find online.  http://www.landman.org/

Here's a short descriptive on some distinctions.  http://www.mineralweb.com/surface-rights-vs-mineral-rights-in-oil-gas-leasing/

[roamer_1]

Water access is an issue as well.

Nah... Not really... Fences run along rivers all the time.

[truth_seeker]

I would not depend upon Wikipedia to learn more about mineral and surface rights.

I only refer to Wiki for an overview of the main aspects of subjects.

[thackney]

Wiki on "mineral rights:"

It states further, that a mineral right also includes rights to use the surface, in order to access the subsurface minerals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_rights

True, mineral rights are legally dominate over surface rights.  Mainly because it does not take the entire surface to access the minerals.  The room for a well pad and drive is not going to consume the 40 acres that well can easily drain.  Typically they have to pay additional for the surface area used, but the mineral owner cannot be refused access to his minerals.  Just as you cannot refuse a neighboring property to purchase access if you are the access point for their land.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Just as you cannot refuse a neighboring property to purchase access if you are the access point for their land.

Yes I can refuse.

It needs to be reasonable access.

And that neighbor does not have the right of eminent domain that the state and feds have.

[thackney]

Yes I can refuse.

It needs to be reasonable access.

And that neighbor does not have the right of eminent domain that the state and feds have.

Yes reasonable. 

For example, we used to own lake front property.  There was a small point that was owned by someone else, but the only land access was across our property.

We could not deny him access, but we could demand he buy a right-of-way at the going rates.  He could have taken us to court, but the court order would have been for him to pay for the right-of-way at going rates.

He refused to buy.  He was not able to develop it to sell as he dreamed. 

He bought it on the cheap from a tax sale.  The average cost of a narrow right of way was about double what he paid for the +acre.  Eventually he quit paying taxes on it and it went up for tax sale again.   I offered to buy it before that (at going undeveloped, bad access rates)  I didn't check often enough, or we would have bought it.  Since then we sold ours.

We had the same issue with our property, but I was more reasonable in making my request to the neighbor we had to cross.  Eventually we traded some acres along with a legal right of way that helped both of us.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes reasonable. 

For example, we used to own lake front property.  There was a small point that was owned by someone else, but the only land access was across our property.

We could not deny him access, but we could demand he buy a right-of-way at the going rates.  He could have taken us to court, but the court order would have been for him to pay for the right-of-way at going rates.

He refused to buy.  He was not able to develop it to sell as he dreamed. 

He bought it on the cheap from a tax sale.  The average cost of a narrow right of way was about double what he paid for the +acre.  Eventually he quit paying taxes on it and it went up for tax sale again.   I offered to buy it before that (at going undeveloped, bad access rates)  I didn't check often enough, or we would have bought it.  Since then we sold ours.

We had the same issue with our property, but I was more reasonable in making my request to the neighbor we had to cross.  Eventually we traded some acres along with a legal right of way that helped both of us.

I bought on the cheap 160 acres that was land-blocked except it was contiguous to my existing property which had access to road.  We can get good deals that way.

[thackney]

I bought on the cheap 160 acres that was land-blocked except it was contiguous to my existing property which had access to road.  We can get good deals that way.

I'm trying to buy 30 acres behind me that way.  I have a good relationship with the owning neighbor, but he wants to price it like subdivision lots on the other side of the street.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm trying to buy 30 acres behind me that way.  I have a good relationship with the owning neighbor, but he wants to price it like subdivision lots on the other side of the street.

No way it should be.

Be careful too.  The existing property we have is owned by my wife and her brother, and before it would issue a title opinion on new property, the title company forced me to get a surveyed ROW from her brother across it in spite of my wife owning part of it!

[thackney]

No way it should be.

Which is why he still owns it.

Be careful too.  The existing property we have is owned by my wife and her brother, and before it would issue a title opinion on new property, the title company forced me to get a surveyed ROW from her brother across it in spite of my wife owning part of it!

Interesting.

[Silver Pines]

Elsewhere:


"I’m about to the point where I wouldn’t mind if Trump abolished congress and appointed himself king."

"Same here! I’ve about had it with the traitors in Congress."

"lol. Obummer pretty much was one so why not?"

"No No..Just build the wall.They get any money damages only—Who cares? They all have casinos to generate money already so they can get drun and do nothing with their lives. They are so weak, their women own everything including the sheep.Get them whiskey again and BUILD THE WALL!! If they get in the way MOVE THEM HARSHLY!!"

[Elderberry]

You repeat it, you own it.

[Silver Pines]

You repeat it, you own it.

Lol, sure.