Opinion ID: 2612210
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the landowners' appeal

Text: The landowners contend the trial court erred in allowing injunctive relief, claiming that the use of the land surface for drilling operations amounts to a taking of property without due process of law, and that a taking would also occur if the abandoned well bore were allowed to be reopened. Landowners stress they do not attack the validity of the Commission orders. They claim they seek a district court clarification. The Commission has exclusive authority to regulate the conservation of oil and gas and the drilling and operation of oil wells. 17 O.S. 1981 § 52. [3] It has the power to establish well spacing and drilling units ... covering any common source of supply ... . 52 O.S. 1981 § 87.1(e). [4] Cognizance to interpret and construe pooling orders would permit the district court to exercise a significant aspect of the Commission's regulatory authority. It would place the court in charge of an integral part of regulating the conservation and production of oil and gas. Our constitution clearly prohibits such institutional encroachment. [5] The district court is powerless to interfere with any Commission order that establishes the boundaries for well location. [6] The Commission's own authority to clarify and construe previous orders under 52 O.S. 1981 § 112 is highlighted by extant decisions. [7] Recognized by the federal courts as well, [8] it was recently reaffirmed by our pronouncement in Tenneco Oil Co. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. [9] The power of the district court over a decision of the Commission is strictly confined to a facial examination by which to determine whether that administrative agency was vested with jurisdiction to make the order. [10] The landowners' premises are included within the area authorized for location of a well site. The landowners' refusal to allow the operator access to their land was in clear violation of the Commission order incorporating it within the area where a well site could be located. The order is final, unchallenged and unchallengeable in the instant action. The district court properly granted injunctive relief in aid of enforcing that order. The landowners' protest against the operator's chosen location site clearly was not remediable in a district court suit.