Court Opinion

ID: 9785843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:43:09.607901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:35.264996
License: Public Domain

HARGRAVE, J.
¶ 1 YDF, Inc., is the operator of an active oil and gas well. Schlumar, Inc., is the owner of property located in Canadian County, that is adjacent to the property on which YDF’s oil and gas well is located. The subdivision in which Schlumar’s property is located was platted in 2001 for residential development. Effective July 1, 2003, the legislature enacted 52 O.S. § 318.10. This statute provides that after the effective date of the act, it shall be unlawful to locate any habitable structure within a radius of 125 feet from the wellbore of an active well.
¶ 2 In 2004, Schlumar, a builder, purchased property adjacent to YDF’s oil well. In November 2004, Schlumar began constructing a home (a habitable structure) on his property. This structure happens to be within 125 feet of YDF’s oil well. In April of 2005, YDF informed Schlumar, by letter, that it was unlawful to erect a habitable structure within 125 feet of the oil well pursuant to 52 O.S. § 318.10, and that Schlumar was in violation of that statute.
¶ 3 YDF then commenced the present suit in District Court seeking a declaration that Schlumar was in violation of 52 O.S. § 318.10, an injunction against completion of the house, and damages for negligence and negligence per se. Schlumar counterclaimed, alleging slander of title. Schlumar then filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs declaration theory, contending that, as a matter of law, 52 O.S. § 318.10 did not apply to him as an adjacent landowner, even if the house was constructed within 125 feet of the wellbore, as 52 O.S. § 318.10 is part of the Oklahoma Surface Damages act, 52 O.S. § 318.2 et seq., and thus applies only to
surface owners and not to adjacent landowners.
¶ 4 On September 6, 2005, the trial judge signed and filed an order determining that 52 O.S. § 318.10 did not apply to this adjacent landowner and, thus, YDF was not entitled to a declaration in its favor. That order was certified for immediate review as a certified interlocutory order.
¶ 5 The issues presented by this matter are whether 52 O.S. § 318.10 applies to adjacent landowners and whether, if it does apply, it constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property, prohibited by Art. 2 § 23 of the Oklahoma Constitution. We hold that 52 O.S. § 318.10 is in fact part of the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, and as such, applies only to surface owners and not adjacent landowners. The standard of review is de novo. Booth v. McKnight, 2003 OK 49, 70 P.3d 855, 860.
¶ 6 The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, and that intent is first sought in the language of the statute. World Publishing Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49 ¶ 79, 32 P.3d 829, 832. When legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the language of a statute, as in cases of ambiguity, we must apply rules of statutory construction. The test for ambiguity in a statute is whether the statutory language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. In the Matter of J.L.M., 2005 OK 15 ¶ 5, 109 P.3d 336. Whether language is ambiguous is a question of law. American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9 ¶ 11, 89 P.3d 1051, 1054. In construing ambiguous statutory language, we do not limit ourselves to the consideration of a single word or phrase. Rather, we look to the various provisions of the relevant legislative scheme to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent and the public policy underlying that intent. World Publishing Co. v. Miller, 2001 OK 49 ¶ 79, 32 P.3d 829, 832.
¶ 7 In the present matter, the statute in question, 52 O.S. Supp.2003 § 318.10 provides:
*659A. After the effective date of this act, it shall be unlawful to locate any habitable structure within:
1. A radius of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the wellbore of an active well; or
2. A radius of fifty (50) feet from the center of any surface equipment or other equipment necessary for the operation of an active well, including, but not limited to, hydrocarbon and brine storage vessels, tanks, compressors, heaters, separators, dehydrators, or any other related equipment.
B. Provided, however, the provisions of this section shall not prohibit an operator and surface owner from agreeing in writing to setback provisions with distances different from those set forth in this section.
¶ 8 The Oklahoma Surface Damages Act is codified at 52 O.S. § 318.1 et seq. Title 52 § 318.2 sets forth the definitions to be used in the act. It provides:
For purposes of Section 1 through 8 of this act:
1. “Operator” means a mineral owner or lessee who is engaged in drilling or preparing to drill for oil or gas; and
2 “Surface owner” means the owner or owners of record of the surface of the property on which the drilling operation is to occur.
¶ 9 This statute was passed in 1982. The statute in question in the case at bar was passed in 2003 and was placed numerically with the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act. To interpret § 318.10 it is necessary to turn to the definition section of the Surface Damages Act to define “operator” and “surface owner.” The addition of 52 O.S. Supp.2003 § 318.10 appears to not have been by mere happenstance or coincidence as YDF alleges, but rather the intent of the legislature was to create an addendum to the Act.
¶ 10 The purpose of the Surface Damages Act is to promote the prompt payment of compensation of a surface owner whose land is taken for oil and gas exploration. The Oklahoma Legislature enacted the Surface Damages Act to provide a mechanism to balance the conflicting interests of the owners of two of our State’s most important resources; the mineral interest owner and the surface owner. Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart, 2003 OK 11 ¶ 5, 64 P.3d 1113, 1115. The Surface Damages Act states Oklahoma’s policy regarding damage of land caused by oil and gas drilling operation while balancing the interests of oil and gas operators with those of surface owners. Schneberger v. Apache Corp. 1994 OK 117, 890 P.2d 847, 853.
¶ 11 In the present matter, Schlumar does not now and has never owned the separate tract of land on which the well is located. Schlumar is not the “surface owner” of the land on which the well sits and therefore the Surface Damages Act does not apply to his land. Having found that 52 O.S. Supp.2003 § 318.10 is part of the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, this Court has fully disposed of all pertinent questions at bar and we therefore find that the trial court’s granting of summary judgment was correct and proper.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.
¶ 12 CONCUR: WATT, C. J., LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, EDMONDSON, JJ.
¶ 13 DISSENT: WINCHESTER (joins TAYLOR, J.), V.C.J., OPALA (joins TAYLOR, J.), TAYLOR (by separate writing), COLBERT (joins TAYLOR, J.), JJ.