Petition — Currey v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma

Supreme Court brief1981

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Bd > U: $

g0-1010 |~ Fite

= ie DEC 19 18aQ

IN THE ' | MICHAEL RODAK, JR cy cme

;

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

: OCTOBER TERM, 1980

NO.

P.W.CURREY AND MRS. JAMES D. CURREY

d/b/a CURREY & CURREY

a/k/a CURREY, SHIELDS & CURREY,

Petitioners,

VERSUS

CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,

Respondents

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

ile

Bank Bldg. i. Floor, Heritage Square

Dallas, Texas :

75201 5001 L.B.J. Freeway

Dallas, Texas 75233!

(214) 742-2551 (214)661-5402

Counsel For Petitioners

December, 1980

QUESTION PRESENTED

May the State of Oklahoma regulate oil and gas

exploration operations conducted on restricted

Indian lands within its borders?

Page 1

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

NO.

P.W.CURREY AND MRS. JAMES D. CURREY

d/b/a CURREY & CURREY

a/k/a CURREY, SHIELDS & CURREY,

Petitioners,

VERSUS

CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,

Respondents

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Petitioners are P. W. Currey and Mrs. James D.

Currey who, at all material times, were members of or

successors to a partnership doing business as Currey &

Currey and also known as Currey, Shields & Currey.

Page 2

—f%

Respondents are the Corporation Commission of

the State of Oklahoma and its Director of Conservation,

Dan R. Dunnett.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented 1

Parties to Proceeding Below 2

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities 4

Official Report of Opinion Below 7

Jurisdiction g

Pertinent Constitutional, Statutory

and Regulatory Provisions

Statement of the Case 10

Reason for Allowance of the Writ 14

Appendix A: Findings and Order App.

of the Corporation Commission

Appendix B: Petiton in Error App.

Appendix C: Opinion of Supreme Court App.

of Oklahoma

Appendix D: Petition for Rehearing App.

Appendix E: Correction Order of App.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Appendix F: Order Denying Petition App.

Page 3

for Rehearing

Appendix G: Mandate of the Oklahoma App.

Supreme Court

Appendix H: Applicable Provision of App.

the United States Constitution

Appendix I: Applicable Provisions App.

of Federal Statute

Appendix J: Applicable Provisions of App.

Federal Regulation

Appendix K: Applicable Provisions of App.

the Constitution of the State of

Oklahoma

. Appendix L: Applicable Provisions of App.

Oklahoma Statutes

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

a Cases:

Bryan v. Itasca County, 1976, 16,32

a 96 S.Ct. 2102, 426 U.S. 373,

48 L.Ed. 2d 710

Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 20

, 367 74 L. Ed. 478,

50S. Ct. 121 (1930)

E Cockran v. Teehee, 40 Okl. 388, 19

138 P. 563 (1914)

: F.B. Collins Inv. Co. v. Beard, 18

46 Okl. 310, 148 P.346, 850 (1915)

DeCoteau v. District Court, 1975, 24

95 S.Ct. 1082, 410 U.S. 425,

43 L. Ed. 2d 300,

reh den. 95 S. Ct. 1667,

421 U.S. 939, 44 L.Ed. 2d 95.

Page 4

Fisher v. District Court, 1976,

96 S.Ct.424 U.S. 382, 943,

47 L. Ed. 2d 106, reh. den.,

96S. Ct. 1524, 425 5 U.S. 926,

47 L. Ed. 2d 772.

Franz v. Autry, 18 Okl. 56l,

91 P. 193 i907)

Kennerly v. District Court, 1971,

27 L. Ed. 2d 507

McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Commission

1973, 93 S.Ct. 1257,

4ll U. S. 164 at 168,

36 L.Ed. 2d 129 at 133

Mashunkashey v. Mashunkashey,

191 Okl. 501, 134

P.2d 976 (1943)

Mattz v. Arnett, 1973,

93 S.Ct. 2245, 412 U.S. 481,

37 L. Ed. 2d 92.

Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones,

1973, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 411 U.S. 145,

36 L.Ed 2d 114 at 4 U.S. 149

(New Mexico)

Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes,

1976, 95 yee 1634, 424 U.S. 463,

4&8L. Ed. 2d 96

Northern Natural Gas Co. v.

~ §tate Corporation Commission

of Kansas, 1962, 835. Ct. 646,

373 U.S. 84, 9 3 Ed 2d 601,

reh. den. 83 S.Ct. 10ll,

371 U.S. 960, 10 L.Ed 2d 14

Organized Village of Kake v. Egan,

369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562,

7 L.Ed.2d 573 (1962)

Page 5

26,27,

28,29

14,16,

16,18,23

12,15,17,

19,20,22,

23,24

. Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County | 16

CA9) 532 F. 2d 655 (1975)

Scioto Oil Co. v. O'Hern, 67 Oki. 106, 19

169 P. 483 (1917)

Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6, 100 21

L. Ed. 883, 76 S. Ct. 611 (1956)

State v. Huser, 76 Okl. 130, “18

184 P, 113 (1919)

Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 17

ISM, 31 S.Ct. 578, 221 U.S. 286,

55 L.Ed. 738

Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax 16,21,23

Commission, 1965, 85 S.Ct. 1242,

380 U.S.685, 14 L.Ed 2d 165

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 17,18,21,22

79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959)

Worchester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 16,17,22

8 L.Ed 483 (1832)

U. S. Constitution (APPENDIX H)

Art. I, Section 8, clause 3 9

- Art. IV, clause 2 9

Federal Statutes (APPENDIX I)

Act of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267-278, 9,17

"Oklahoma Enabling Act"

Act of August 14, 1947, 61 Stat. 731, 9,13,

Pub.L. 80-336, Cc. 459, 29,30,34

Section 11

Page 6

Act of August 15, 1953, 9,13,25,26,

Pub.L. 83-280, 67 Stat. 590 27 ,28,33

Act of April 11, 1968, Pub.L. 90-284, 25,26,

Title IV, Sections 402, 404 27,28,

72 Stat. 79, "Civil Rights Act 33

of 1968". 25 U.S.C.Sect. 1321 et.seq.

Oklahoma Constitution (APPENDIX K) ~

Art. 1, Section 3, Oklahoma 9,13,18,29

Constitution ;

Oklahoma Statutes (APPENDIX L)

Title 17, Okla. Statutes 1971, 10

Sections 51-53, inc.

Title 52, Okla. Statues 1971, 10

Section 243

Title 52, Okla. Statutes 1971, 10

Section 273

Title 75, Okla. Statutes 1971, 10,19

Section 184

25 C.F.R. Part 1, Section 1.4 14

OFFICIAL REPORT OF OPINIONS BELOW

This Opinion of the Supreme Court of the State

of Oklahoma is officially reported as P. W. Currey et

al. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma et al.,

Okl., 617 P. 2d 177 (1980). :

Page 7

JURISDICTION

On January 10, 1978, the Corporation Commission of

the State of Oklahoma issued its Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, together with an Order, the contents

of which are attached as "Appendix A". An appeal from

the Order was filed in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma

(Appendix B). The initial Opinion of the Supreme Court of

the State of Oklahoma (Appendix C) was issued June 12,

1979. A Petition for Rehearing was filed in a timely

manner (Appendix D). A "Correction Order" of the

Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma (Appendix E)

was issued September 22, 1980, simultaneously with its

Order Denying Petition for Rehearing attached as

"Appendix P*.

Jurisdiction is invoked under the provisions of 28

U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (3), by reason that (1) the statutes of the

State of Oklahoma, to the extent that the Corporation

Commission is vested with jurisdiction to regulate oil and

gas exploration on restricted Indian lands, are repugnant

to the constitution, laws and regulations of the United

States and (2) Petitioner claims an immunity from State

Page 8

action under the Constitution, laws and regulations of the

United States.

PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY

AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS

These proceedings involve the application of

Article 1, Section 8, clause 3, the "Commerce Clause",

and Article 6, clause 2, the "Supremacy Clause" of the

United States Constitution, quoted in pertinent part in

"Appendix H". The federal statutory provisions involved

are Pub.L. 83-280, c.505, Act of August 15, 1953, 67

Stat.590, Sections 6,7; Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat.

78 25 U. S. C. Sections 1321-1326; Pub.L. 80-336,

Section ll, Act of August 14, 1947, c.459, 61 Stat. 731; and

the "Oklahoma Enabling Act," Act of June 16, 1906, c.

3335, Section 1, 34 Stat. 267. The pertinent federal

Statutory provisions are cited in "Appendix I." Code of

Federal Regulation provisions involved are found

generally as 25 CFR, Part |; 25 CFR, Part 183 (1954 Ed.)

and 30 CFR Part 221 (1949 Ed.), pertinent sections of

which are attached as "Appendix J." .

Applicable Oklahoma constitutional and statutory

provisions are as follows: the "disclaimer" provisions of

Article 1, Section 3, Oklahoma Constitution, attached as

Page 9

“Appendix K;" statutes of authority of the Corporaiton

Commission as found in Title 17, Oklahoma Statutes 1971,

Sections 51-53; Title 52, Oklahoma Statutes 1971, Sections

243 and 273; and the Oklahoma 1971 "Codification" statute

found at Title 75, Oklahoma Statutes 1971, Section 184;

pertinent portions of the statutes are attached as

"Appendix L."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioners, a Texas partnership, obtained leased

rights to certain restricted Choctaw lands located in

Stephens County, Oklahoma in the early 1950's. The lease

was obtained through the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA")

a bureau of the Department of Interior, and granted

Petitioners the right to explore for oil and gas. Upon

execution of the lease and the posting of required surety,

BIA turned the supervision of the exploration activities to

the United States Geological Survey ("USGS"), also a

subdivision of the Department of Interior. »

Petitioners entered the lands pursuant to the lease

and drilled three (3) wells, at all times complying with the

regulations and under the supervision of USGS.

Page 10

In the mid 1950's, each of the wells were the subject

of a "Notice of Intent to Abandon", which notice

contained a description of the method by which

Petitioners intended to "plug" the wells. The plugging

methods were approved by USGS. The wells were plugged

and the fact and method of the abandonment were duly

reported to and approved by USGS.

The plugging of each of the three (3) wells complied

in all respects with the applicable USGS regulations.

Following the abandonment of the wells, USGS inspected

the well sites, approved the plugging and surface

restoration and recommended to BIA that Petitioners

bond be released. Petitioners were thereafter released by,

BIA.

In 1974, one of the wells experienced a “surface

break out". Attempts by third parties (not parties here or

’ below) to replug the well were unsuccessful and, in 1976,a —

representative of the Corporation Commission inennbted |

the site and filed his complaint with the Commission. A

second well was made the subject of a complaint later in

1977.

Notice of the complaints was given to Petitioners

and a hearing was conducted by a Corporation

Page 11

Commission trial examiner. Neither the Indian landowner

nor the Department of Interior appeared as or were made

parties to the hearing.

Petitioners answered the Complaint. inter alia

denying the jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission to

impose requirements upon Petitioners because Petitioners

were subject to federal not state regulation. The trial

examiner and, subsequently, the Corporation Commission

noted the objection to jurisdiction of Petitioners, but

found jurisdiction (Appendix A, paragraph 2,3). The

Corporation Commission entered its Order directing

Petitioners to enter the lease and replug the wells.

Appeal from the Order was taken to the Supreme

Court of Oklahoma by Petition in Error asserting inter

alia the failure of Commission jurisdiction over oil and

gas exploratio. on restricted Indian land. (Appendix B,

paragraph 5.a.l).

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma

affirmed the Commission's finding of jurisdiction.

(Appendix C). The Court, in summary, held (1) that

Oklahoma's constitutional "disclaimer (Art. 1, Section 3,

Appendix K) affected "proprietary" rather than

governmental interests, relying on Organized Village of

Page 12

Kake v. E an, 1962, 82 S.Ct. 562, 369 U.S. 60, 7 L.Ed 2d

573, and (z) that the language of permissive assumption of

jurisdiction in Pub. L. 83-280, Section 6, Act of August 15,

1953, 67 Stat. 590, together with the provisions of Pub. L.

80-336, Act of August 14, 1947, c. 459, 61 Stat. 7331,

permitted the Corporation Commission to exercise its

regulatory authority to Indian lands. Concluding, the

Court said:

* eee

We hold that the power of the Corporation

Commission to regulate oil and gas conservation

measures under the laws of the state on restricted

Indian lands and order appellant to replug purging

wells, is not precluded by the federal jurisdiction.

Our Constitutional mandate contained in O.S. 1971

Art. | Sec. 3 stating that Indian lands "shall be

remain subject to the jurisdiction, disposal, and

control of the United States", envisions

undiminished and not exclusive jurisdiction. We so

hold.

*eex-t-**

From that holding and affirmance of juisdiction,

Petitioners seek this Court's relief.

Page 13

. |

REASON FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT

THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAS UNCONSTITU-

TIONALLY AND UNILATERALLY IMPOSED ITS

REGULATORY LAWS UPON INDIAN LANDS WITHIN ITS

BORDERS IN DEROGATION OF ASSIGNED STATE

JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS AND IN CONFLICT WITH

FEDERAL PLENARY AND PREEMPTIVE AUTHORITY.

Petitioners seek this Court's relief in vacating the

holding of the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirming the

Corporation Commission's unilateral assumption of

jurisdiction over oil and gas operations on Indian lands

within its borders.

Relying upon the same authority as did the Arizona

Supreme Court in McClanahan v. Arizona Tax

Commission, infra, the Oklahoma Court excised itself

from the historical position taken by this Court in

deciding state-federal jurisdictional litigation regarding

Indian land. The narrow issue in McClanahan, 1973, 93

S.Ct. 1257, 4ll U. S. 164 at 168, 36 L.Ed. 2d 129 at 133, was

whether a State may tax a reservation Indian for income

earned exclusively on the reservation. The narrow issue

presented here is whether a State may impose its

Page 14

conservation measures upon Indian lands in face of

pervasive federal regulation on the same subject.

Petitioners do not claim that they are subject to no

regulation. They do not claim that neither the Indian

landowner nor his trustee, the United States government,

is without remedy to correct any perceived conditions

which allegedly exist. What Petitioners do claim is that,

given the abundant expressions of this Court of federal

exclusivity and preemptive regulatory supremacy of

Indian land use and control, Petitioners are not required

to respond to both State and federal regulation with

respect to their lease obligations. Particularly is this so

where, as found below, the regulations of both federal and

State agencies are identical. In this connection, it is

helpful to recall that, while federal regulatory agencies

were aware of the proceedings below, no appearance by

the federal agency or the Indian landowner precipitated or

gave vicarious support to the position of the State of

Oklahoma.

Petitioners respectfully suggest that this Court put

at final rest the propensity of the several States to rely

upon the expressions of this court in Organized Village of

Kake v. Egan, 1962, 82 S.Ct. 562, 369 U.S. 60, 7 L.Ed. 2d

Page 15

573, expressions which admittedly this Court has

attempted to limit or place in perspective in subsequent

opinions. Eg., McClanahan, supra, 411 U.S. 176, n. 15;

Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Commission, 1965, 85

S.Ct. 1242, 380 U.S.685, 14 L.Ed 2d 165; Mascalero Apache

Tribe v. Jones, 1973, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 4ll U.S. 145, 36 L.Ed

2d 114.

It is abundantly clear that when courts speak of

"Indian land," no real distinction is made between tribal

lands, trust lands or alloted lands. Indian lands are,

simply, Indian lands. Historically and in present practice,

Congress has _ constitutionally exercised plenary

jurisdiction over Indian lands, U. S. Const., Art. I, Sec.8, |

Clause 3, whether under a concept of exclusivity

Worchester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L.Ed 483 (1832), or,

more recently, under a notion of preemptive regulation.

Bryan v. Itasca County, 1976, 96 S.Ct. 2102, 426 U.S.

373, 48 L.Ed. 2d 710. Indeed, in Santa Rosa Band of

Indians v. Kings County (CA9) 532 F. 2d 655 (1975), the

Ninth Circuit said at 658:

e*eeet

At the outset, we emphasize that this suit

involves an attempt to regulate Indian use of Indian

trust lands. We are clear, regardless of the

modification worked in the exclusive Federal

Page 16

jurisdiction and tribal sovereignty doctrines of

Worchester v. Georgia, 3] U.S. (6 Pet. 515) 350, 8

L.Ed. 483 (1832), by subsequent Court decisions such

as Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60,

82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573 (a) and Williams v.

Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959),

that in any event any concurrent jurisdiction the

states might inherently have possessed to regulate

Indian use of reservation lands has long ago been

preempted ‘by extensive Federal police and

legislation. (Citations omitted).

That the federal government has exclusive authority

"to deal with, control and protect the property of the

Indian, where not expressly abandoned, is no longer open

to controversy." Tiger v. Western Investment Co., I9ll, 31

S.Ct. 578, 221 U.S. 286, 55 L.Ed. 738

THE OKLAHOMA ENABLING ACT AND SUBSEQUENT

LAWS PRECLUDE # ASSUMPTION OF STATE

JURISDICTION.

in the Oklahoma Enabling Act, Act of June 16, 1906,

34 Stat. 267-278, Congress conditioned § Dklahoma's

statehood upon a disclaimer of jurisdiction over Indian

lands, requiring that the new State include the following

language in its Constitution:

* * * Provided, that nothing contained in said

constitution shall be construed to . . . limit or affect

the authority of the Government of the United States to

make any law or regulation respecting such Indians, their

lands, property or other rights * * * (34 Stat. 267).

Oklahoma complied with that condition precedent to

Page 17

statehood in Art.1l, Sec.3 of its constitution.

Parenthetically, the Enabling Act affecting Oklahoma

also enabled the new states of Arizona and New Mexico to

join the Union, subject to the same disclaimer conditions.

Act of June 16, 1906, supra; Sec. 25, Second; Williams v.

Lee, 1959, 79 S.Ct. 269, 358 U.S. 217, 3 L.Ed 2d 251, n. 10

at 358 U.S. 222 (Arizona Mescalero Apache Tribe v.

Jones, 1973, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 4ll U.S. 145, 36 L.Ed 2d l4 at

411 U.S. 149 (New Mexico).

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma has

acknowledged and given its own meaning to the effect of

their State's Constitutional limitations with respect to

Indian lands. It has held, variously, that Oklahoma must

look solely to the. acts of Congress with respect to

restrictions on Indian lands, F.B. Collins Inv. Co. v. Beard,

46 Okl. 310,148 P.846, 850 (1915); that the plenary

authority of Congress to legislate for Indian lands cannot -

be impaired by Oklahoma, State v. Huser, 76 Okl. 130, 184

P. 113 (1919); that the cession of jurisdiction to the federal

government was not restricted, but absolute, Franz v.

Autry, 18 Okl. 561, 91 P. 193 (1907); that where a conflict

exists between state and federal authority, state law is

superceded, Mashunkashey v. Mashunkashey, 191 Okl.

Page 18

501, 134 P.2d 976 (1943). See also Cockran v. Teehee, 40

Okl. 388, 138 P. 563 (1914); Scioto Oil Co. v. O'Hern, 67

Okl. 106, 169 P. 483 (1917). Moreover, the Oklahoma

Legislature, in making its decennial codification of

statutes, maintains the disclaimers. 750.S. 1971 Sec. 184.

Perhaps, the historical attitude of the State of Oklahoma

can be summed in the language of Mashunkashey v.

Mashunkashey, supra, 191 Okl. 505:

We have referred to state and federal authorities

outlining the policy and purpose of the law with

respect to the lands and property of the Indians.

None of these authorities discloses an inclination to

limit in any degree the broad and comprehensive

powers reserved to the federal government by the

all-inclusive language of section | of the Enablin

Act. Specifically, the power reserved was the

power to make any law or regulation which it would

have been competent to make "if this act had never

been passed." Prior to statehood, the power of

Congress to legislate with respect to the Indians,

their lands and property, was plenary. This plenary

power was fully preserved to the Congress by the

Provisions of the Enabling Act and the acceptance

of said provisions by the people of this state.

(Emphasis added).

In face of the historical expressions of the

Oklahoma judiciary, the Oklahoma Supreme Court now

States, relying on Organized Village, supra,

*nenre tt

Oklahoma's disclaimer of right and title to Indian

lands is a disclaimer of proprietary rather than

governmental interests.

*eet &

Page 19

The Oklahoma Court ignored, however, what this

Court was required to restate in McClanahan, supra, 4ll

U.S. 176, note 15:

x* keer

* * *In (Organized Village of Kake v. Egan), we

held that "absolute™ federal jurisdiction is not

invariable exclusive jurisdiction," and that this

language in federal legislation did not preclude the

exercise of residual state authority. See (369 U.S.

68, 7 L.Ed. 2d 573). But that holding came in

context of a decision concerning the fishing rights

of nonreservation Indians. See (369 U.S. 62, 7 L.

Ed. 2d 573). It did not purport to provide guidelines

for the exercise of state authority in areas set aside

by treaty for the exclusive use and control of

Indians. (Emphasis by the Court).

ett &

Nor did the Oklahoma Court look to the impact of

McClanahan upon the disclaimer language of the Arizona

Enabling Act, identical to that of Oklahoma (McClanahan,

supra, commencing at 4ll U.S. 174):

* etek

It is circumstances such as these which have led this

Court in interpreting Indian treaties, to adopt the

general rule that "(d)oubtful expressions are to be

resolved in favor of the weak and defenseless people

who are the wards of the nation, dependent upon its

protection and good faith." Carpenter v. Shaw, 280

U.S. 363, 367 74 L. Ed. 478, 50 S. Ct. 121 (1930).

When this canon of construction is taken together

with the tradition of Indian independence described

above, it cannot be doubted that the reservation of

certain lands for the exclusive use and occupancy of

the Navajos and the exclusion of non-Navajos from

the prescribed area was meant to establish the lands

as within the exclusive sovereignty of the Navajos

Page 20

under general federal supervision. It is thus

unsurprising that this Court has interpreted the

Navajo treaty to preclude extension of state

law -- including state tax law -- to Indians on the

Navajo Reservation. See Warren Trading Post Co.

v. Arizona Tax Comm'n 380 U.S. at 687, 690, 14 L.

Ed. 2d 165; Williams v. Lee, supra, at 221-222, 3 L.

Ed. 2d 251.

Moreover, since the signing of the Navajo treaty,

Congress has consistently acted upon the assumption

that the State lacked jurisdiction over the Navajos

living on the reservation. (Footnote 13 by Court).

Thus, when Arizona entered the Union, its entry was

expressly conditioned on the promise that the State

would "forever disclaim all right and title to which

shall have been acquired through or from the United

States or any prior sovereignty, and that until the

title of such Indian or Indian tribes shall be and

remain subject to the disposition and under the

absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of

the United States. Arizona Enabling Act, 36

Stat.557, 569. (Footnote omitted)

Nor is the Arizona Enabling Act silent on the

specific question of tax immunity. The Act

expressly provides that "nothing herein, or in the

ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the

said State from taxing as other lands and other

property are taxed any lands and other property

outside of an Indian reservation owned or held by an

Indian." Id. at 570 (emphasis added). It is true of

course, that exemptions from tax laws should, as a

general rule, be clearly expressed. But we have in

the past construed language far more ambiguous

than this as providing a tax exemption for Indians.

See, e.g., Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1, 6, 100 L.

Ed. 883, 76 S. Ct. 611 (1956), and we see no reason to

give this language an especially crabbed or

restrictive meaning. (footnote 15 by Court, quoted

supra).

*eete

Footnote 13 is quoted for convenience as follows:

Page 21

eee t

13. “Congress has... acted consistently upon the

assumption that the States have no power to

regulate the affairs of Indians on a

reservation. ... Significantly, when Congress has

wished the States to exercise this power it has

expressly granted them the jurisdiction which

Worcester v. Georgia had denied." Williams v. Lee,

358 U.S., at 220-221, 3 L. Ed. 251 (footnote omitted).

If Organized Village can be said to stand for any

proposition relevant here -- since the case did not involve

state regulatory jurisdiction over Indian lands -- it can

only be used as a summary of all criteria, the absence of

which must exist before a state may assert such

jurisdiction. By way of summary, state jurisdiction over

. Indian lands under the guise of regulatory authority

cannot exist:

1. If state action infringes upon the right of

Indians to make their own laws;

2. If there exists a treaty obligation excluding

state authority;

3. If there is an impairment of federal law or

regulation;

4, If Congress has reserved regulatory authority

to itself; or

5. If there exists any legal impediment to the

state law prohibiting it.

Illustrative of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court

Page 22

has not tended to relax restrictions against state

regulatory power since Organized Village ‘are the

following expressions of what state may not do in a

regulatory capacity as against Indian lands (reminding this

Court that Organized Village concerned itself with

non-Indian lands):

1. The State of Arizona could not impose a tax

on gross proceeds of sales to Indians on an_ Indian

reservation. Warren Trading Post Co. v Arizona Tax

Commission, supra. Again, note that Arizona has the

same disclaimer requirement as does Oklahoma.

2. The State of New Mexico could not impose a

use tax on personality installed in the construction of ski

lifts by Indians even. though the lift was on

off-reservation land. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones,

supra. The State of New Mexico has the same disclaimer

requirement as does Oklahoma and Arizona. Additionally, .

Mescalero Apache Tribe limits the effect of Organized

Village to "off-reservation activities." 411 U.S. 153, 36 L.

Ed. 2d 122.

3. The mere fact that land is allotted does not

terminate federal supervision of Indian Country. Mattz v.

Arnett, 1973, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 412 U.S. 481, 37 L. Ed. 2d 92.

Page 23

4, Only where Congress clearly terminates its

supervisory status does a state assume jurisdiction.

‘DeCoteau v. District Court, 1975, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 410 U.S.

425, 43 L. Ed. 2d 300, reh den. 95 S. Ct. 1667, 421 U.S.

939, 44 L. Ed. 2d 95.

5. Where Congress has vested jyrisdiction over

adoption preceedings of reservation Indians in a tribal

court, a state may not assert jurisdiction since the

overriding federal policy defeats that assertion. Fisher v.

District Court, 1976, 96 S.Ct.424 U.S. 382, 943, 47 L. Ed.

2d 106, reh. den., 96 S. Ct. 1524, 425 U.S. 926, 47 L. Ed.

2d 772.

6. The State of Montana could not tax personal

property located on a reservation, or require a cigarette

vendor's license or collection of sales tax for products

sold to on-reservation Indians. Moe v. Salish & Kootenai

Tribes, 1976, 95 S. Ct. 1634, 424 U.S. 463, 48 L. Ed. 2d 96.

Montana is also a disclaimer state.

Such language does not bespeak of limitations of the

Oklahoma disclaimer to a mere "proprietary" interest as

the Oklahoma Supreme Court states in this instance. The

court below improperly relied upon Organized Village,

supra, for its implied assertion that the Enabling Act

Page 24

disclaimer is now something less than what it was

immediately after Statehood. Having done so, the

Oklahoma Court has invaded traditional federal

sovereignty.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA HAS NOT ASSUMED

JURISDICTION ON RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS

The opinion issued by the Oklahoma Supreme Court,

by way of summary, reasoned (I) that the disclaimer

provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution applied to

"proprietary" powers and not political or police power; (2)

that Pub. L. 83-280, (hereafter Pub. L. 280), 67 Stat. 588

1953) (and its successor Civil Rights Act of 1968)

empowered a state, without more, to enlarge its

jurisdiction to Indian lands to the same extent as the

federal governments withdrew its jurisdiction; and (3) that

Congress, in requiring a State to "amend" its constitution

or statutes, only imposed such an obligation to do that

affirmative act "where necessary," that is, where the

constitution or statutes pose impediments to assumption

of sovereignty.

An analysis of the general relinquishment of federal

jurisdiction over restricted Indian lands, through State

Page 25

consent, was treated extensively in Kennerly v. District

Court, 1971, 91 S. Ct. 480, 400 U.S. 423, 27 L. Ed. 2d 507.

By way of summary, the U. S. Supreme Court limited the

application of Pub L. 280, extending criminal jurisdiction

extending civil jurisdiction to the five states enumerated.

Montana (as Oklahoma) was not an enumerated State.

Said the Court, at 400 U.S. 424, 425:

“ett

"Prior to the passage of Title IV of the Civil

Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 78, 25 U.S.C. Sections

1321-1326 (1964 ed., Supp. V)... state assumption of

civil jurisdiction -- was governed by Section 7 of

the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 590.

Section 7 of that siatute provided:

'The consent of the United States is hereby given to

any other state not having jurisdiction with respect

to criminal offenses or civil causes of action, or

with respect to both, as provided for in this Act

(referring to Sections 2 and 4, see n. |, supra), to

assume jurisdiction at such time and in such a

manner as the people of the State shall,

affirmative legislative action, obligate and bind

State to assumption thereof.’ (Emphasis added).

* et

The Kennerly Court, faced with an action to enforce

a debt incurred within the boundaries of the Blackfeet

Reservation by members of the tribe, noted that the

Montana legislature, by legislative enactment, had

extended criminal, but not civil, jurisdiction over the

lands of the Flathead tribe,

Page 26

* eet

"But Montana never took ‘affirmative legislative

action'-- concerning either civil or criminal

jurisdiction -- with respect to the Blackfeet

Reser vation."

x*ert

The Blackfeet tribe, however, had adopted as part

of its tribal law an enactment which, unilaterally, granted

the State concurrent jurisdiction with the tribal courts

over civil suits. Hence, the Kennerly Court was faced

with Pub. L. 280.

In discussing the necessity of State "affirmative

legislative action" to extend its jurisdiction over Indian

lands, the Kennerly Court stated, 400 U.S. 427:

eek t

"Nor was the requirement of affirmative legislative

action an idle choice of words; the legislative

history of the 1953 statute shows that the

requirement was intended to assure that state

jurisdiction would not be extended until the

jurisdiction to be responsible for the portion of

Indian country concerned manifested by political

action their willingness and ability to discharge

their new responsibilities." enone added).

* ek &

Nor did the pre-1968 tribal action constitute the

requisite consent required under the Civil Rights Act of

1968, 25 U.S.C. Sections 1321-1326. Said the Court, 400

U.S. 428:

Page 27

"=>

*xeet

Title IV of the 1968 statute repealed Section 7 of the

1953 Act (Pub. L. 280, supra) and substituted a new

regulatory scheme for the extension of state civil

and criminal jurisdiction to litigation involving

Indians living in Indian country."

* tt

The provisions of the 1968 Act, Pub. L. 90-284, Title

IV, Sections 402, 404, 82 Stat. 79 (April ll, 1968), 25

U.S.C. Sections 1321, 1324, enabled a state to assume civil

jurisdiction upon the occurrence of two contingencies: (1)

"consent of the tribe occupying the particular Indian

country or part thereof," 25 U.S.C. Section 1321, and (2)

amendments to constitutions and statutes for the removal

_ of legal impediments, 25 U.S.C. Section 1324.

By way of summary, therefore, the assumption of

State jurisdiction over restricted Indian lands in Oklahoma

must, according to Kennerly, supra, have come about in

one of two ways if the 1953 and 1968 congressional

enactments are to furnish a basis of jurisdiction:

l. If assumed under authority of Pub. L. 280 such

assumption of jurisdiction must flow from

"affirmative legislative action" of the State of

Oklahoma; or

2. If assumed under authority of the Civil Rights

Page 28

Act of 1968, such assumption must be

preceeded by the electoral consent of

Choctaw tribe and the affirmative assertion of

jurisdiction of the State.

There is nothing in the record nor has research

developed the criteria precedent to the Corporation

Commission's assumption of jurisdiction over oil wells on

Indian land. Requisite consent of the Choctaw tribe is not

evident in the record below and none is believed to exist.

Legal research has uncovered no "affirmative legislative

action" wherein the State of Oklahoma " manifested by

political action (its) willingness and ability to discharge

their new responsibility." Kennerly, supra, 400 U.S. 427.

Assuming this discussion to be a accurate reflection of

the law, then it follows that the restrictions of Oklahoma

law impose more than a mere proprietary disclaimer, but

an unqualified constitutional impediment. Okla. Const.

Art. 1, Section3.

Ill

PUB. L. 80-336 TRANSFERS NO FEDERAL

JURISDICTION TO THE CORPORATION COMMISSION

IN VIEW OF EXISTING FEDERAL OIL AND GAS

REGULATIONS AND ABSENCE OF FEDERAL

APPROVAL OF ORDERS.

Page 29

The Oklahoma Supreme Court cited no authority

wherein Congress has yielded to the Oklahoma

Corporation Commission an independent power to

regulate oil and gas exploration activities on Indian lands

except that which may be said to exist in the provisions of

Pub.L. 80-336, c.459, Sec.ll, Act of August 4, 1947,

61 Stat. 731:

* ket

All restricted lands of the Five Civilized Tribes are

hereby made subject to all oil and gas conservation

laws of Oklahoma: Provided, that no order of the

Corporation Commission affecting restricted Indian

land shall be valid as to such land until submitted to

and approved by the Secretary of the Interior or his

duly authorized representative. (Emphasis original)

x*reet

A condition precedent, however, to the application of

Oklahoma law is the approval of the Secretary of the

Interior. The Court below entirely disregarded the

regulations of the Department of Interior which

specifically preclude the application of State or local law

with respect to the regulation of Indian lands. 25 CFR

Part 1 Sec.1.4(2):

x*eet &

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this

section, none of the laws, ordinances, codes,

resolutions, rules or other regulations of any

State or political subdivision thereof limiting,

zoning or otherwise governing, regulating, or

Page 30

¢%

controlling the use or development of any real

or personal proper including water rights,

shall be applicable to any such propert

leased from or held or used under agreement

with and belonging to any Indian or Indian

tribe, band, or cummunity that is held in trust

by the United States or is subject to a

restriction against aliention imposed by the

United States. (30 Fed. Reg. 7520 (June 9,

1965).

eek

Moreover, the record below does not reflect and there is

not known to be an application by the Corporation

Commission to the Interior Department for an approval of

its Order in this case. The Department of Interior,

however, knew of the pending action before the

Commission; the District Engineer for USGS testified at

the hearing (Appendix A, para 25). The Findings of Fact

of the Commission reflect that, at all Stages of their

activities, Petitioners complied with all federal

regulations, both regulations of BIA and USGS, and were

released from federal obligations under the lease.

(Appendix A, paras. 25-36; See Appendix J for

regulations under which Petitioner was bound).

In short, the abundant and pervasive regulatory

scheme adopted and exercised by the Department of

Interior has pre-empted whatever authority the

Corporation Commission may have had _ under

Page 31

Pub.L.80-336, supra. Bryan v. Itasca County, supra. The

Corporation Commission's order to Petitioners to enter

into Indian land and to perform acts with respect to that

land is an invalid invasion of the exclusive domain of

federal authority Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State

Corporation Commission of Kansas, 1962, 83S. Ct. 646,

373 U.S. 84,9 L.Ed 2d 601, reh. den. 83 S.Ct. 10ll, 371

U.S. 960, 10 L.Ed 2d 14, an authority upon which

Petitioners were entitled to rely.

By way of summary, Petitioners contend that,

having submitted to and complied with federal regulatory

requirements imposed to date, they should not be subject

to Oklahoma jurisdiction. Petitioners state that the body

of law recited above -- indeed, the body of legal history.

left uncited because of limitations of space -- make

clear that the State of Oklahoma has entered upon a

course of enforcement which it is constitutionally unable

to do, assuming a power of regulation clearly given to and

yet retained by the federal government and invading,

without authority of law, the preempted field of federally

regulated concerns. Petitioners may well be subject to

the same order from federal authority; they may well be

subject to landowner action; they cannot be, given the

Page 32

status of the law, subject to actions by the State of

Oklahoma.

CONCLUSION

Given the extensive oil and gas _ exploration

activities required to meet national energy needs, the

relative role of state and federal government in

regulating the nature and manner of such activities on

Indian lands must be clearly defined.

To Petitioners' knowledge, this Court has never

expressed itself as to the extent, if any, to which a State

may assume regulatory authority for development of

minerals located on Indian lands. Hence, Petitioners

present a case of new impression.

Moreover, while this Court has spoken to a need for

affirmative action by disclaimer States to assume civil

and criminal jurisdiction under Pub. L. 280 and the 1968

Civil Rights Act, it is clear from the rather cursory

treatment of Petitioner's cause by the court below that

this court should once again express itself to (I) the

manner by which federally imposed and required state

constitutional disclaimers may be removed, (2) the extent

Page 33

y -

to which a removal permits States to assert its police

power and other regulatory schemes and (3) the conflict

between apparent delegations of federal authority over

Indian lands in the nature of Pub. L. 80-336 and the

pervasive federal regulations affecting both State and

federal interests.

Petitioners pray, therefore, that this Court grant

their Petition and, upon review of the merits, reverse the

decision below.

Respectfully submitted,

WESNER COKE & BOYD

Geos

By f

arry R. Boyd

8th Floor,

Heritage Square II

5001 L.B.J. Freeway

Dallas, Texas 75234

(214)661-5402

Attorney for Petitioners

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

On the 19th day of December, 1980, I, Larry R.

Boyd, a member of the Bar of the State of Texas and of

the Supreme Court of the United States, certify that, in

accordance with Rule 28.3 of the Rules of the Supreme

Page 34

Court, mailed to the following named counsel of record

below, at the addresses shown, three (3) copies of the

foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme

Court of the State of Oklahoma, by depositing the same in

a United States mailbox, first class postage prepaid:

Corporation Commission of Oklahoma

by serving:

Harvey Cody, Attorney

Oil and Gas Conservation Division

Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Jim Thorpe Office Building

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Attorney for Respondents

<r ) eae

Page 35

APPENDIX A

BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

COMPLAINT OF DAN )

R. DUNNETT, )

DIRECTOR OF )

CONSERVATION, FOR )

AND ORDER REQUIRING )

c Curry & CURRY TO PLUG ) CAUSE P.D.N0O.8236

: WELLS LOCATED IN THE )

SW/4 NW/4 NW/4 )

OF SECTION 10, )

TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, )

RANGE 5 WEST, )

STEPHENS COUNTY, )

)

OKLAHOMA. ORDER NO. 137283

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

This cause came on to be heard before Don

B. Edinger, Acting Trial Examiner for the

} 7 Corporation Commission of Oklahoma on the 26th day

of April, 1977, in the Commission's courtroom, Jim

: Thorpe Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, pursuant

to notice given as required by law and the Rules of

the Commission for the purpose of taking testimony

, . and reporting to the Commission. The cause was

originally set for the 19th of April, 1977.

APPENDIX A

Mr. Nathan Sherman, Assistant

Conservation Attorney, appeared for the

Complainant, Dan R. Dunnett, Director of

Conservation; Mr. Manville Buford, Attorney,

appeared for the Respondent, Curry & Curry; Mr. John

Robertson, Attorney, appeared for Continental Oil

Company; Mr. John Robertson, Attorney, appeared for

Continental Oil Company; Mr. Charles W. Nease,

District Engineer, appeared for the U.S. Geological

Survey.

The Trial Examiner proceeded to hear the

cause and filed his report recommending the

Complaint be granted. Within the time permitted,

Exceptions were filed by Respondent, Curry & Curry,

and were argued before the Commission on the 12th

day of September, 1977, at the conclusion of which,

the cause was taken under advisment.

Now on this 10 day of January, 1978, the

Commission being in regular session and after

considering all the testimony and evidence introd-

uced at said hearing and after hearing arguments and

Statements of counsel finds that the Report of the

APPENDIX A

Trial Examiner should be adopted and in support

thereof finds as fallows:

FIN DINGS

L This is the Complaint of Dan R. Dunnett,

Director of Conservation, for an order requiring

Curry & Curry to plug wells located in the SW/4 NW/4

NW/4 of Section 10, Township 3 South, Range 5 West,

Stephens County, Oklahoma.

2. At the’ beginning of the hearing,

Respondent stated that, although the Complaint

covered only the Sophie Harrison B-2 Well located in

the SW/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 10, Township 3 South,

Range 5 West, Stephens County, Oklahoma, there were

two additional wells located in the same section,

namely the Sophie Harrison B-l located in the SE/4

NW/4 NE/4 and the Sophie Harrison No. 1 located in

the NW/4 NW/4 NW/4, which should be considered and

that Respondent waived notice of publication and

reserved the right to defend. It was so stepulated

(sic). Respondent questions the jurisdiction of the

Corporation Commission over the wells on the grounds

that the wells were drilled on Choctaw Indian Land

APPENDIX A

as a result of a lease over which the United States

of America had axclusive jurisdiction through the

United States Geological Service.

3. The Commission finds that it has

jurisdiction over the subject matter herein and

notice has been given in all respects as required by

law and the Rules and Regulations of the Com mission,

4. It was the testimony of the District

Manager that no intent to drill, completion report

or intent to plug are on file with the Commission

for these wells with the single exception of a

Plugging record for the Harrison 1-B Well which was

filed on July 29, 1974. These wells were drilled by

Curry, Shields and Curry. The District Manager's

first inspection, after receiving notice of a

purging well, was on March 12, 1976. At that time,

casing was sticking out of the hole that had been

Placed there by Continental during efforts to plug

the well The location of the well was measured

from the lease lines and the purging well was

determined from the location listed on the 1954

scout report (165 feet from the west line and 4,455

APPENDIX A

feet from the south line) to be the Sophie Harrison

B-2 Well. The well was purging at the rate of about

45 barrels of salt water per day. Samples of the

purging water were taken on March 12, 1976, and an

analysis indicated 21,000 ppm total solids and

12,500 ppm chlorides. Since no records of this well

were located in the Commission files, the District

Manager called the U.S. Gealogical Survey for

information, Their records indicated that the well

had been plugged by pilacing five sacks of cement at

the bottom of the hole, filling the hole with nine

pound mud and then plugging at the surface with

three sacks of cement.

5. The Sophie Harrison No, 1 Well was covered

over and the well is not purging. No intent,

completion report or intent to plug were filed with

the Commission. The Sophie Harrison B-l Well was

not inspected. No intent or completion report were

filed but a plugging report was filed with the

Com mission. This report indicates the well was

Plugged on July 20, 1954. It was reported that a

wet area existed on the surface around the well

APPENDIX A

6. On cross examination, it was stated that

according to the reports of the USGS, the Harrison

B-2 Well had been plugged with five sacks of cement

at the bottom and three sacks at the top. The USGS

record indicates casing was left in the hole and

Halliburton's records indicate that casing was

cemented in the hole. Five sacks of cement in 5 1/2

inch casing would fill up the casing about 25 to 30

feet. Three sacks at the top would fill up about 15

feet of the casing; purging was not reported on this

well after July, 1954, until reported by Continental

some time prior to March 12, 1976.

7. Continental O71 Company has the adjoining

Jease on which there are secondary § recovery

Operations, Shutting down the closest injection

well on the Continental lease did not affect the

purging. A March 8, 1976, letter from Continental

to Sam Shakely, Manager Pollution Abatement, stated

that the flow decreased only when the Short-Price

and Swan injectivzn well located southeast of the

Harris 2-B Well was shut in. It was admitted that

APPENDIX A

. a |

secondary recovery operations exert pressure in the

formations into which water is injected.

8. The District Manager admitted that

Blugging records could be lost or misplaced,

Fieldmen, when witnessing a plugging, normally kept

a record which was later turned in to the office.

Mr. J. E. Burba, now retired, was the Field

Inspector for the area at the time. Mr. Burba

probably retained some of his records on retirement.

Had Mr. Burba witnessed the plugging it would meet

the District Manager's ,approval, but we have no

record indicating that he had witnessed the

Plugging. At that time we had considerably fewer

fieldmen. These men attempted to witness pluggings

but often were unable to because of the work load.

Since the name was typed on the reports, this could

mean only that the work was done in the fieldman's

area. If a well were plugged, cement should be

found about three feet below .the surface, The

Corporation Com mission did not find the cement plus.

9. When the Complaint on the Harrison 1-B was

filed the witness reviewed the Complaint including

APPENDIX A

the copy of the plugging report which had been filed

with the Commission. Mr. Burba’s name was listed

as the name of the Conservation Officer who

witnessed the plugging, however, this did not mean

that Mr. Burba witnessed the plugging but rather

that the well was in Mr. Burba's area.

10. The Complaint indicates an area of about

30 feet in diameter is wet in the area of the

Harrison B-1 Well.

IL. The plugging report for the Harrison 1-B

Well indicated ten sacks of cement were placed in

the bottom, the well filled wit: mud and after

setting, 3 sacks of cement placed in the top of the

hole. This would have met the minimum requirements

at the time and would comply generally with the

custom and practice at the time. The witness could

not tell if a sample of water was from either of the

floods in the area.

12. The Field Inspector testified that on

November 2, 1976, he found a well, later identified

as the Harrison B-2 Well, purging salt water into a

small pit. No record of intent to plug or a

APPENDIX A

.- '

Plugging report for this well could be located in

the Commission files. A USGS form, "Subsequent

Report of Abandonment", had been forwarded to Duncan

Office. According to this report, casing was left

in the well, five sacks of cement placed in the

bottom of the well and three sacks in the top. The

USGS log of ail or gas wells indicates 940 feet of 5

Y2 inch casing was cemented in the hole. In the

SE/4 NW/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 10, an area 30 feet

in diameter soaked in salt water was found @-1 Well

location). About April 20, 1977, the Harrison No.

1 Well (NW/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 10), was found; no

pollution was occurring.

13. On cross examination, the Field Inspector

Stated that he felt that the plug in the B-2 Well

was not strong enough to withstand the pressures,

The plug on the B-l Well was not satisfactory but

the plug on the Harrison No, 1 Well was, The

Separate records of plugging were kept by field

inspectors and normally submitted to the office. If

5 1/2 inch casing were in the hole in the B-2 Well

and 5 sacks of cement placed in the bottom hole

APPENDIX A

filled with mud and 3 sacks placed in the top, the

plugging would probably have been in compliance with

the Rules, Waterfloods were in operation in 1954,

and there has been reports of purging due to

waterfloods, However, if a well were plugged

properly, the plug should hold. The field inspector

did not know if the current practices regarding

Plugging were in practice in 1954. There is no

complaint as to the Harrison No, 1 WelL

14. The witness ffor Continental testified

that Conoco had secondary recovery operations to the

west in Section 8 and 9, Township 3 South, Range 5

West. Continental owns no interest in Section 10

and is interested in the Harrison B-2 Well only.

Continental discovered a breakout in the Harrison

B-2 Well and reported it. Continental attempted to

plug the leak, as follows: Field foreman had pits

dug and drilling rig rigged over the hole. The

surface hole was about 12 inches in diameter, found

hale by inserting a rod. Drilled to 250 feet, ran 2

inch tubing to bottom, pumped 125 sacks of cement an

at 200 lbs. - achieved fill up. The water continued

APPENDIX A

to flow. In an attempt to find the ald casing, a

pit 25 feet deep was bulldozed around the location.

Filed pit, drilled another hole, encountered

cement and possibly aid casing at 30 feet. Slipped

off and continued to drill to 221 feet. Tubing run

to 220 feet. Cement was circulated to surface but

water continued at a rate of 35 - 50 barrels a day.

Then 26 feet of 5 1/2 inch casing was shoved down

over the tubing and the site leveled. Water was

still produced. Ran 25 feet of 1 inch inside the

casing and pumped in 100 gallons Western Flow

Contral which did not hald. The next day welded 5

Y2 inch to the 2 inch tubing and pumped Flow

Control in; water continued to flow out tubing and

around casing.

15. Continental hauls water off at the cost of

$700.00 per month and has spent in the range of

$40,000.00 on this well.

16. Injection into Continental's injection

well No. 132, the closest injection well to this

lease, was shut in and the flow from the B-2 Well

neither ceased or slowed. Water injection into the

APPENDIX A

Short-Price and Swan injection well located 1,700

feet south was shut down for awhile. The amount of

water purging dropped from 60 to 45 barrels a day.

When the well was started up again, about 6 days,

purging water rose to 50 bbls. In mid July the

water dropped to about 40 bbls. a day for no

apparent reason,

17. Water analyses were made of waters from

the Short-Price and Swan No. 1 injection well, an

average sample of Continental injection water and

the Harrison B-2 Well. The results are somewhat

inconclusive although Continental engineers feel

that the analyses inidicate that the purging water

is not coming from their flood. Tt was also

testified that the Loco Series was a single source

of Supply made up of many stringers,

18. Mr. Fred A. Norris, Manager of Field

Operations, presented the Rules in effect at the

time of the plugging. The Rules state that a well

must be plugged in such a manner that oil, gas,

water or other substances shall be confined to the

reservoir in which it originally occurred and that

APPENDIX A

the open hole below the casing shoe shall be filled

with mud or cement to a point 25 feet above the

shoe. If impractical, a 25 foot plug may be set

which plug shall extend at least 25 feet above the

casing shoe. No surface casing shall be pulled

unless authorized by the Conservation Officer, or by

Special order of the Commission. A plug or seal

Shall be placed at the surface in such a manner as

to not interfere with soil cultivation.

19. It was further testified that as far as

the B-2 Well is concerned, no Form 1002A, plugging

report, or intent to drill form were filed with the

Commission and that the Conservation Division is

unable to state that the well is properly plugged.

An incomplete plugging report but no intent to drill

or Form 1002A are on file for the B-1 Well, while no

records are on file for the No. 1 Well

20. It was further testified that a large

number of floods have been approved in this area

over the years. The Price flood to the south for

instance, is flooding the Loco Sand, a series of

lenticular sands, at a depth of about 520 feet. The

APPENDIX A

B-2 Well was never perforated in this formation. [If

the 5 1/2 inch casing was cemented and left in the

hole and cement placed in the bottom and the top

according to the Rules, the plugging should hold

against flood injection.

2. Normally, the field inspector sends his

field record of plugging into the District Office.

This record is compared with the report form

submitted by the operator. If Mr. Burba had

' witnessed the plugging, however, he could have lost

this field copy or could have taken it with him when

he left the employ of the Commission. Mr. Burba

was a competent employee and had he witnessed the

Plugging, it would have been done according to the

Rules,

22. At the time of the plugging of the wells

in question, the Corporation Commission had only

some 22 field inspectors. Due to the work load,

these men were not required to be on location for

every plugging. They were to attempt to witness as

many of the plluggings as possible. The typed name

On a plugging report, therefore, meant only that the

APPENDIX A

well was in an inspector's district and did not

necessarily indicate that the plugging was

witnessed, unless the inspector's signature was on

the form.

23. An offset operator said there were

several joints of pipe laying on the ground at the-

B-2 location about the time the plugging was

Supposed to have occurred. According to reports, no

surface pipe had been set but the long string had

been cemented in. Tt was also testified that the

Rules did not state the amount of cement to be used

in plugging and that plugging records although meg:

permanently could be lost or misfiled.

24. At that time, Mr. Burford, Attorney for

the Respondent, demurred to the evidence and the

Trial Examiner ruled the demerrer (sic) would be

taken under advisement. After consideration of the

testimony, the ruquest (sic) for demurrer is

overruled,

25. Mr. Nease, USGS District Engineer,

testified that he was familiar with all 3 wells.

The USGS supervised oil and gas operations for the

APPENDIX A

Office of Indian Affairs on restricted Indian lands.

Tt is their responsibility to see that leases are

properly developed. The USGS requires an intent to

Grill be filed. An intent to drill was filed for

all 3 wells in question. The procedure followed in

1956 was to check location of the well, review

Grilling program and approve application. Curry and

Curry, Operating out of Dallas, Texas, filed USGS

completion reports for all 3 wells as follows: Well

No. 1 on March 29, 1954; Well B-l on August 4, 1954;

Well B-2 on August 17, 1954. Their practice was to

review these reports and if incomplete to return

them to operator. These reports were not returned.

26. Another required form is an intent to

abandon on which operator lists how the well is to

be plugged. USGS checks with the completion report

and decides whether oc not the procedure is correct

and if it is, it is approved. If not, USGS set the

procedure. All 3 wells in question were approved.

27. Bureau of Indian Affairs requires a bond

be posted based on lease size. Lease is issued only

after bond is posted. All 3 wells in question were

APPENDIX A

on the same lease. When and if wells are properly

Plugged and surface restored, the USGS recommends to

Bureau of Indian: Affairs that the bond be

terminated,

28. After application to abandon is approved,

a representative of USGS is sent to witness the

plugging. Tf not available, verbal permission is

given. A subsequent report is filed stating how the

well was plugged. This is compared with the

approved application and if substantially

different, it must be checked and approved;

otherwise the report is disapproved, and may be

required to replug. The subsequent report on all 3

wells was approved indicating all 3 wells were

Plugged in compliance with USGS rules. USGS states

that as long as USGS requirements are met, the well

is approved. State requirements are up to the

Operator. At the time in question, USGS minimum

requirements were same as the State. USGS is not

limited by these regulations and can impose

additional regulations,

APPENDIX A

y » *

29. A letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs

recommended the release of the Curry and Curry bond

indicating requirements had been met. An on-site

inspection of the premises to check surface

restoration is always made. The inspection was made

on the 3 wells in question.

30. Exhibit No. Il is an affidavit signed by

B. G. Taylor, Vice-President of Halliburton

Services dated April 19, 1977. The attached

invoices indicate that Halliburton cemented the

production string in the B-2 Well to a depth of 940

feet, acidized, fractured, set a bridge plug and

perforated 333 - 334 with six shots and cemented to

surface with 100 sacks.

3. The “Sundry Notice ‘and Reports on Wel’ *

indicates that as to the B-2 Well, the casing was

left in the hole, five sacks of cement placed on the

bottom hole filled with mud and 3 sacks of cement

Placed in the top to cover the hole. The form

indicates this was done August 24, 1956, and that

work was not witnessed. Sundry indicates that as to

the 1-B Well, 40 feet of surface casing was set and

APPENDIX A

<> *

cemented to the surface. Ten sacks of cement pumped

to the bottom; mud was used to fill the hale.

32. Admittedly, most of Oklahoma Corporation

Commission required forms in this case were not

filed with the Commission. Reports were filed with

the U. S. Gedlogical Survey. At the time of filing,

the requirements of the USGS for completion and

plugging were evidently the same as those of the

Oklahoma Corporation Commission. However, since

most of the required forms were not filed with the

Commission, it is difficult to ascertain whether or

not the wells were properly plugged.

33. The evidence shows that in the case of the

B-2 Well, Halliburton records indicate that the

casing was cemented to the surface. The report

Gundry Notices and Reports on Wells) filed with the

USGS and signed by a J. Wayne Johnson indicates that

casing was left in the hole, five sacks of cement

placed in the bottom and three sacks placed in the

top to cover the hole. Although this report was

approved by the Deputy Supervisor, it is noted that

the actual plugging operations were not witnessed.

APPENDIX A

y » *

34. The Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells

- filed with the USGS for Well No. 1-B indicates that

surface casing was set to a depth of 40 feet below

ground level and cemented to surface. Ten sacks of

cement were pumped to the bottom of the hole, mud

added and after settling for 3 days surface casing

cut off at li inches below ground level and three

sacks of cement pumped into the top. The notice

filed also indicates that the plugging operations

were not witnessed.

35. A letter dated November 21, 1958, to the

Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs from the

Acting District Engineer states that a lease

inspection made November 20, 1958, indicated wells

on the Sophie Harrison Lease, NW/4 NE/4 NW/4 and ©

NW/4NE/4NW/4NE/4NW/4 NW/4 andS/2NW/4NW/4NW/4

were plugged and surface remedial work completed.

36. Against this information, we have the

testimony that a hale located where the Harrison B-2

Well should be is purging salt water. That

Continental Oil Company dug a pit 25 feet deep

around this location attempting to find the surface

APPENDIX A

"SS

casing and that none was located. There was also

testimony indicating that casing was noted lying on

the ground at the time the plugging of the B-2 was

being accomplished.

37. The Commission finds that the Sophie

Harrison B-2 Well and the Sophie Harrison B-1 Well

were not plugged in accordance with the Rules and

Regulations of the Corporation Com mission,

APPENDIX A

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Corporation

Com mission of Oklahoma that Curry & Curry plug the

Sophie Harrison B-2 Well, located in the SW/4 NW/4

NW/4 and the Sophie Harrison B-1 Well Located in the

SE/4 NW/4 NE/4 NW/4 of Section 10, Township 3 South,

Range 5 West, Stephens County, Oklahoma within 90

days of the date of the Order and to file report of

Plugging within 10 days after completion of

Plugging.

DONE AND PERFORMED this _10_ day of.

January, 1978.

CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA

S/Rex Privett

REX PRIVETT, CHAIRMAN

amp Baker

HAMP BAKER, VICE-CHAIRMAN

an Eric Cart

JAN ERIC CARTWRIGHT, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

S/ Ed Overhciser

ED OVERHOLSER, SECRETARY

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

P.W. CURREY AND

MRS. JAMES D. CURREY

d/b/a CURREY & CURREY,

)

Appellants,

vs. ) NO. 51906

)

CORPORATION COMMISSION ) FILED

OF OKLAHOMA; DAN R. ) SUPREME COURT

DUNNETT, DIRECTOR OF ) STATE OF ,

CONSERVATION FOR ) OKLAHOMA

CORPORATION COMMISSION ) ROSS N. LILLARD,

OF OKLAHOMA ) JR., CLERK

A ) January 31,

1978

PETITION IN ERROR

Appellants state:

L This Appeal is brought to review the

decision of the Corporation Commission of the State

of Oklahoma, said decision being issued on the 10th

day of January, 1978 as Order No. 137283 in Cause

P.D.No. 8236 by the Com mission styled as fallows:

COMPLAINT OF DAN R. DUNNETT, DIRECTOR OF

CONSERVATION, FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING

CURRY & CURRY TO PLUG WELLS LOCATED

IN THE SW/4 NW/4 NW/4 OF SECTION 10

TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST,

STEPHENS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.

APPENDIX B

* #3

A true and correct copy of the “Report of the

Com mission" incorporating the Order Complained of

is attached as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein

by reference,

2. The’ style and number assigned to

proceedings below is as contained with Exhibit A.

a: Sie proceedings below were initiated upon

the Complaint of Appellee Dan R. Dunnett (hereafter

"DUNNETT") in his capacity as Director of

Conservation for the Corporation Commission of

Oklahoma (hereafter "Commission") wherein DUNNETT

sought an Order from the Commission to compel

Appellants, Respondents below, to plug certain oil

and gas wells located in Stephens County, Oklahoma,

one or more of which wells were said to be

“purging”. Upon hearing, the Acting Trial examiner

for the Commission issued his "Report of the Trial

Examiner," which inter alia recommended that

Appellants be required to "properly plug” the

alleged offensive wells, although the evidence

indicated that the wells had once been plugged.

Appellants took exception to the "Report of the

Trial Examiner" and, upon hearing, the Commission,

APPENDIX B

in effect, affirmed the Trial Examiner's Report,

finding that two of the wells "were not plugged in

accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the

Corporation Commission and ordering Appellants to

"pluc" the two wells within ninety (90) days of the

date of the Order and to file appropriate plugging

reports.

4. The decision and Order appealed from was

rendered on the 10th day of January, 1979, with

compliance by Appellants to be accomplished on or

before ninety (90) days thereafter.

5. Appellants complain of the following

error by the Com mission in its decision and Order:

a. The Commission lacked jurisdiction to

enter said Order as against Appellants for one or

more or the following reasons:

} The wells in question are located

on restricted Indian land and, as such, drilling and

Plugging operations are under the exclusive

jurisdiction of the United States government to the

exclusion of the Com mission;

2) Assuming that the Commission

had, to some degree, a superintending jurisdiction

APPENDIX B

in the plugging of wells on restricted Indian lands,

such jurisdiction did not extend to exceed or

contravene the plugging requirements imposed by

federal regulatory agencies;

3) Assuming that the Commission

had, to some degree, a superintending jurisdiction

in the plugging of wells, it had no authority under

applicable plugging statutes to compel Appellant to

re-enter the wells and replug or repair plugs on the

wells,

b. The findings and conclusions made by

the Commission are not supported by evidence or law,

to-wit:

}) All creditable evidence support

a finding that each of the wells was plugged in a

manner which complied with existing federal and

State regulations and the custom and practice of the

industry;

2) The applicable “plugging”

statute, 52 O.S. 1951 Sec. 53, did not authorize the

Commission to compel Appellant to re-enter, replug

or repair plugs when, once having done ™,

Appellants had abandoned the wells;

APPENDIX B

3) Such statutory authority which

may have been enacted subsequent to the plugging of

the wells and which purports to grant authority to

the Commission to compel Appellants to re-enter and

replug the wells constitute, as a matter of law, ex

post facto legislation and may not be applied to

Appellants;

4) The compulsive order of the

Commission as against Appellants was barred by the

Statute of Limitatons; and

5) No evidence exists which will

Support a conclusion that the manner or method of

Plugging by Appellants did not comply with the Rules

and Regulations of the Corporation Com mission.

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

Appellants pray this Honorable Court to grant the

fallowing relief:

lL =«*‘To set aside and vacate the Order of

the Commission wherein the Commission compels

Appellants to

"...plug the Sophie Harrison B-2 Well,

located in the SW/4 NW/4 NW/4 and the

Harrison B-l Well located in the

SE/4 NW/4 NE/4 NW/4 of Section 10,

Coca” Gilet ame as a a

County, Oklahoma within 90 days of

APPENDIX B

‘*>

date of the Order and to file report of

Pluggin within 10 days after completion

of plugging;"

2. To dismiss Appellants from this and

any other proceedings before the Commission or other

tribunal to abate or correct such conditions as may

now or may hereafter exist at the sites of the wells

described in the Report of the Com mission;

3. To order costs of this appeal to be

assessed against and paid by the Com mission, and

4. Such other and further relief as to

which Appellants are entitled.

P, W. CURREY AND MRS. JAMES D. CURREY

G/b/a CURREY & CURREY a/k/a

CURREY,SHIELDS& CU RREY,Appellants

s/Manville T. Buford

MANVILLE T. BUFORD

Buck, Crabtree, Ransdell & Buford

1700 Park Harvey Center

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

Attorneys for Appellants

APPENDIX B

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

On this 31 day of January, 1978, a

true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed

with the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma and

mailed, postage prepaid, to the following:

Honorable Larry D

Attorney General of the State Oklahoma

Capitol Building

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

Nathan Sherman

Assistant Conservation A

Oklahoma Corporation Com mission

Jim Thorpe Building

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

John R. Robertson, Jr.

Attorney for Continental Oil Company

1000 Fidelity Plaza

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

Charley W. Nease

District Engineer

U. S. Gedlogical Survey

50 Penn Place

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112

Don B. Edinger

Acting Trial Examiner

Oklahoma Corporation Com mission

Jim Thorpe Building

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

S/Manville T. Buford

MANVILLE T. BUFORD

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

P. W. Currey and

Mrs, James D. Currey

G/b/a Currey & Currey

a/k/a Currey, Shields &

Currey,

Appellants,

vs.

Corporation Com mission

of Oklahoma; Dan R.

Dunnett, Director of

Conservation for

Corporation Com mission

of Oklahoma,

Appellees.

me me ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee eee

No. 51,906

FILED

June 12, 1979

ROSS N. LILLARD, JR.

Clerk,

SUPREME COURT

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Appeal from Order of Corporation Commission

directing Appellants to replug abandoned oil and gas

wells which are purging salt water onto the surface

of the land.

ORDER OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AFFIRMED

Manville T. Buford,

Buck, Crabtree, Ransdell &

Buford

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

APPENDIX C

For Appellants;

Harvey Cody,

Conservation Attorney,

Nathan S. Sherman,

Assistant Conservation

Attorney,

Oklahoma Corporation

Com mission, For Appellees.

WILLIAMS, J.

Appeal is taken by P. W. Currey and Mrs, James

D. Currey d/b/a Currey & Currey a/k/a Currey,

Shields & Currey (Appellant/Currey) from Order No.

137273 of the Corporation Commission (Commission)

directing Currey to replug two wells located in

Stephens County.

Appellant obtained oil and gas exploration

lease rights to restricted Choctaw lands located in

Stephens County, Oklahoma. The lease was obtained

throught the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which

then turned direct supervision to the United States

Geological Survey (USGS).

Evidence adduced before the Trial Examiner for

the Commission disclosed further that Currey

Grilled three wells, "Sophie Harrison No, 1,”

"Sophie Harrison No. B-l" and Sophie Harrison No.

B-2" (wells). All three wells were abandoned in the

mid-1950's. The wells were thereafter plugged, and

APPENDIX C

‘FX

appropriate reports made to USGS. Parties disagree

as to the degree of compliance with Commission

filing requirements, but both agree that Currey did

not fully comply with all Commission filing

requirements,

In 1976 Continental Oil Company, an adjacent

and contiguous lessee, discovered salt water

purging from one of Currey'’s wells. Continental

informed the Commission, which thereafter inspected

the site, found one well to be purging and issued a

complaint. The complaint was later amended to

encompass another well found to be purging.

Extensive testimony was taken by the trial

examiner regarding compliance with USGS plugging

requirements and conformity to Commission filing

requirements, The degree of compliance is not

deter minative.

It is not disputed that the wells were drilled

and operated by Currey over twenty years ago, and

that now two of these wells are spewing forth salt

water in excess of forty barrels a day onto the

APPENDIX C

Appellant contends generally that the

Corporation Commission has no jurisdiction to order

reworking or replugging of wells because the wells

are located oon restricted Indian lands under

exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

Appellant Currey further argues that even if

the Federal Government lacks exclusive

jurisdiction, still the Commission is without

statutory authority to compel replugging. We shall

deal with the second argument first.

Appellant relies heavily on Minshall_ v.

Corporation Commission, OkL, 485 P.2d 1058 (97)),

which has been further clarified by Ashland Oil,

Inc. v. Corporation Commission, __P.24 _.

Ashland supra clarifies Minshall and addresses

itself more specifically to such facts as are

invalved in the case at bar as fallows:

Ashland urges on appeal that Minshall v.

Corporation Commission, Ok. 485 P.2d 1058

(971) controls. In Minshall, the Corporation

Commission found that a well drilled, plugged,

and abandoned by Minshall was leaking gas

through and onto the ground. Apparently

APPENDIX C

relying upon 52 0.S. Supp. 1965, $3101 the

Commission ordered Minshall to replug the

well

On appeal, the Minshall cour: stated in

its syllabus: ‘Neither 17 0O.S. 1961, §53, nor

any of the provision of Senate Bill No, 396 of

the Thirtieth (1963) Oklahoma Legislature

(Chapter 191 O.S.L. 1965; 52 O.S. Suppe.

1965-1969, §§309 through 317) imposes upon any

- one an obligation to replug, or repair, an

abandoned well that has been plugged but is

Presently leaking salt water, oil, gas, or

other deleterious substances,'

~»-At page 1061 of Minshal, we

read: *** If the well has been plugged, the

question of whether or not it was properly

Plugged in accordance with the then-effective

rules and regulations is not invalved.'

Additionally, as the Commission correctly

points out, the Court in Minshall clearly

limited its consideration to the 7

“oo

L Amended by Laws, c.217, § 2.

APPENDIX C

Powey cS

=. ae

application of 52 O.S. Supps. 1965-1969,

§§309-315 on the question of an operator's

responsibility and did not concern itself with

amendments to that Act enacted subsequent to

the order of the Commission or with any other

existing statuLes,

For purposes of the instant action it is

important td note that the Court did not

consider the impact of the 1970 Amendment to

§310 (Laws 1970, ch. 217, §2) which provides:

'*** (b) that the operator or any other person

responsible for plugging, replugging or

repairing the well in such manner as is

necessary to prevent further pollution cannot

be found, or is financially umable to pay the

cost of performing such work.* **'

Without question, this provision supplies

the ve im of the

Operator's liability for ‘plugging, _repilugaing

or which was found m at the

time of Minshall was decided. Consideration of

this provision together with numerous other

statutory declarations”

17 OS. 1971, §§5l, 53; 52 OS. 1971, §§ 86.2,

86.3, 271-279, 309-320; 52 O.S. Supp. 1975, §102.

APPENDIX C

= ahs

leaves absolutely no room for doubt that

the Corporation Commission has the

Statutory power to order an operator to

replug wells which were improperly

Plugged.*** (Emphasis added).

The record reveals the Commission's finding

that the wells were not properly plugged was

Supported by substanial evidence. ett Cole 4s 8

required to weigh the evidence on appeal, but to

review the evidence and affirm the order where the

finding and conclusions of the Commission are

sustained by law and substanial evidence. 0S.

1971 Const. Art. 9 §20; Superior Oil Co. v.

Oklahoma _ Corporation Commission, OkL, 242 P.2d 454

(1952). Assuming Oklahoma has jurisdiction over

wells drilled on restricted Indian land, _ the

Commission has the authority to order reworking or

replugging of these wells, and we so hald,

Next requiring attention is appellant's second

Major argument that because the wells were drilled

on restricted Indian lands Oklahoma is_ without

jurisdiction.

APPENDIX C

Currey cites as _ authority OS. 1971

Const. Art. 1 sec. 3 as follows:

The people inhabiting the State do agree

and declare that they forever disclaim all

right and title in or to any wunappropriated

public lands lying within said limits owned or

held by any Indian, tribe, or nation; and that

until the title to any such public land shall

have been extinguished by the United States,

the same shall be and remain subject to the

jurisdiction, disposal, and control of the

United States.

and Public Law No. 83-280, 67 Stat 588 (1953),

which in pertinent part states:

Sec. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of

any Enabling Act for the admission of State,

the consent of the United States is hereby

given to the people of any State to amend,

where necessary, thei: State constitution or

exisiting statutes, as the case may be, to

remove any legal impediment to the assumption

of civil and criminal jurisdiction § in

APPENDIX C

LS *

accordance with the provisions of the Act

**%*. (Emphasis added.

Appellant simply argues that the Constitutional

impediment under Sec. 3 supra has not been properly

removed by any Constitutional amendment. Appellant

proceeded on the assumption that if a right is held

by the Federal Government and later abrogated, then

there must be an affirmative corresponding state

enactment to fill the void. This assumption is

erroneous,

A federal district court held? in construing P.

L. 280 supra that "Congress, under the

constitutional power to regulate commerce with the

Indians, has preempted the field of regulation of

Indian land to the extent that such is necessary to

protect the Indians’ rights therein and to preserve

title thereto until the day when the Indian has

developed culturally to a point where he can deal

and manage his own affairs."

The Court goes on further to say that,

"Congress in recent years has recognized that

3. the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians’

Tribal Council et al, v. The City of Palm Springs,

etc., et al, (D.C., Cal), 347 F. Supp. 42, (1972).

APPENDIX C

Indians in some states, .. . have reached a state

of acculturation where some federal controls might

properly be relaxed.*** Public Law 280, like other

Similar laws in recent years, is a withdrawal by

Congress from its preemption in this field. It has

done so in this case by express grant to the state

of authority, among other things, to exercise its

police power in such a way as to impose upon Indian

lands the same regulations imposed upon all lands

within the boundaries of the state. To the extent

that any further’ withdrawal by the Federal

Government occurs, the sovereignty cf the state

becomes enlarged to that extent.” (Emphasis added).

In 1947, prior to the drilling and plugging of

the wells in question, Public Law 80-336, found in

61 Stat. 731, Act of August 4, 1947 Ch. 459, was

passed by the Congress of the United States,

Section IL of said Act specifically withdraws

Congress from preemption in the field of oil and gas

conservation and thereby enlarged the sovereignty

of Oklahoma to that extent. I+ reads:

"1 AD restricted lands of the Five

Civilized Tribes are hereby made subject to all Of

APPENDIX C

and Gas Conservation laws of the State of Oklahoma;

. +. "(Emphasis added).

No affirmative statutory enactment was

necessary for Oklahoma to assume jurisdiction

abrogated by the federal government.

The United States Supreme Court in Organized

Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 (1962), in an

Opinion by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, construed an

Alaskan conservation law, in light of a

Constitutional provision similar to Oklahoma's

Article 1, Sec.3. Indian communities brought an

action against the Governor of Alaska to enjoin

enforcement of the Alaska Anti-Fish Trap

Conservation Law. !

The principal dispute concerned,” ... the

meaning of sec. 4 of the Statehood Act, in which the

State disclaimed all right and title to and the

United States retained absolute jurisdiction and

control over, inter alia, ‘any lands or other

property ..., the right or title to which may be

held by any Indians ...' o is held by the United

States in trust for said natives." Organized

Village of Kate, supra, at p. 565.

APPENDIX C

The Court states further at page 567 that:

Although the reference to fishing rights

is unique, the _ retention of ‘absalute’

federal jurisdiction over Indian lands

adopts the formula of . nine _ prior

Statehood acts. Indian lands in Arizona

remained ‘under the absolute jurisdiction

and control’ of the United States, 36

Stat. 557; Yet in Williams v. Lee, 358

U.S. 217, 220, 223, 79 S.Ct. 269, 270,

272, 3 L.Ed.2d 251, we declared that the

test of whether a state law could be

applied on Indian reservations there was

whether the application of that law would

interfere with reservation self

government. The identical language

appears in Montana's Admission Act, 25

Stat. 676, 677. Yet in Draper v. United

States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41

L.Ed. 419, the Court held that a

non-Indian who was accused of murdering

another non-Indian on a Montana

Reservation could be prosecuted only in

the state courts, ***

Draper and Williams indicate that

‘absolute’ federal is not

invalably ve

(Organized Village Kake, supra.)

(Emphasis added).

Oklahoma's disclaimer of right and title to

Indian lands is a disclaimer of proprietary rather

than governmental interests, "The State may well

waive its claim to any right or title to the lands

and stil have all of its political or police power

with respect to the actions of the people on those

APPENDIX C

lands, as long as that does not affect the title to

the land." Kake, supra.

We hald that the power of the Corporation

Commission to regulate oil and gas conservation

measures under the laws of the state on restricted

Indian lands and order appellant to replug purging

wells, is not precluded by the federal -urisdiction.

Our Constitutional mandate contained in O.S. 1971

Art, 1 Sec, 3 stating that Indian lands “shall be

and remain subject to the jurisdiction, disposal,

and control of the United States", envisions

undiminished and not exclusive jurisdiction. We so

hald.

CONCUR: Hodges, Barnes, Simms, Dodlin and

Hargrave, JJ.

CONCUR BY REASON OF STARE DECISB:

Lavender, C.J. and Opala, J.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

P. W. CURREY and

MRS. JAMES D. CURREY

G/b/a CURREY & CURREY

)

a/k/a CURREY, SHIELDS )

& CURREY )

)

Appellants,

Vv. ) NO.51,906

) FILED

CORPORATION ) JUNE 25, 1979

COMMISSION OF ) ROSS N. LILLARD, JR.

OKLAHOMA, et.aL, ) CLERK

) SUPREME COURT

Appellees. ) STATE OF OKLAHOMA

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Appellants, by and through counsel and

pursuant to Rule 28, Rules of the Supreme Court of

Oklahoma, respectfully petition the Court for

rehearing in the captioned cause. In support

thereof, Appellants state:

de The Opinion issued and filed June 12,

1979, involved matters of first impression in this

r jurisdiction and constitute, apart from the novel

APPENDIX D

nature thereof, matters on considerable concern to

the parties and the implementation and enforcement

of oil and gas conservation laws of the State.

2. Appellant believes and, in good faith and

with all due respect to the Court, states that the

Court erred in its interpretation of the provisions

cf statute in hdiding that the Corporation

Commission had present authority and jurisdiction

to compe! an oil operator, operating under federal

regulatory restrictions to reenter and = replig

abandoned wells once plugged.

3. Appellant believes the Court erred in its

determination that federal jurisdiction with

respect to restricted Indian lands has_ been

withdrawn in a manner so as to enlarge state

regulatory jurisdiction in and on such lands,

4. Appellant believes the Court erred in its

determination that the federal government has

extended to the State of Oklahoma, without

affirmative acts of the State, exclusive or

concurrent jurisdiction over Indian lands so as to

authorize the Corporation Commission to exercise

APPENDIX D

‘o)

= » *

regulatory control over oail and gas operations

thereon,

5. Appellants believe that the Court either

disregarded or misinterpreted what Appellant

regards as a fundamental principle of law supporting

Appellants’ position, to wit: that the existence of

pervasive federal regulation in the area of oil and

gas operations on Indian lands, including the

reworking and replugging thereon, has preempted the

imposition of . state - regulatory power

notwithstanding other jurisdictional issues, Such

federal regulation, even if operated in conjuction

with state jurisdiction, previals over’ state

regulations to the extent that a conflict exists,

Appellants respectfully believe that such an issue

is of such magnitude with respect to Appellants

rights and obligations that it would work an

injustice not to have the issue treated by this

Court,

WHEREFORE, Appellants pray the Court, upon

consideration, withdraw its Opinion issued and

filed June 12, 1979, and issue its Order vacating

the Order of the Corporation Commission, for costs

APPENDIX D

Pa and such other relief as to which Appellants may be

entitled,

Respectfully submitted,

s/Manville T. Buford

Manville T. Buford

P. 0. Box 60855

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73106

(405) 521-3921

, CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

On this 25th day of June, 1979, a true and

correct copy of the foregaing was mailed, postage

prepaid, to the fallowing:

Hon, Jan Eric Cartwright Nathan Sherman

Attorney General Assistant

Conservation

Capitol Building Attorney

> Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Jim Thorpe Building

73105 Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma 73105

John R. Robertson,

Attorney

1000 Fidelity Plaza

n Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73102:

Manville T, Buford

APPENDIX D

‘ APPENDIX E

> | IN SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

P.W.Currey and Mrs.

James D. Currey d/b/a

Currey & Currey a/k/a

)

Currey, Shields & )

Currey,

r Appellants,

vs. ) No, 51,906

) FILED

Corporation Commission ) September 22,1980

of Oklahoma; Dan R. ) ROSS N. LILLARD, JR.

Dunnett, Director of ) CLERK

Conservation for ) SUPREME COURT

Corporation Commission ) STATE OF OKLAHOMA

of ) !

Oklahoma, )

)

Appellees. )

CORRECTION ORDER

Tt is hereby ordered that the typewritten

Opinion of this court filed and promulgated in the

above styled case on the 12th day of June 1979, be

ordered to be corrected and it is corrected as

hereinafter set forth, that is to say that in the

ninth line of page 6 of such typewritten opinion

next following the end of the partial quotation

APPENDIX E

Pi a i

which concludes with the words and grammatical

symbol, to-wit: State of Oklahoma; and next

preceding the grammatical symbols and words,

to-wit: --."(Emphasis added)., there be

inserted in lieu of tthe ellipsis symbol) the

following words and grammatical symbols, to-wit

Provided, That no order of the Corporation

Commission affecting restricted Indian land shall

be valid as to such land until submitted to and

approved by the Secretary of the Interior or his

duly authorized representative.

| Tt is further ordered that the vote of the

Justices shown at the conclusion of such typewritten

Opinion ( in addition to the name of the author of

the opinion occurring at the commencement of the

body thereof) be corrected as fallows:

BARNES, SIMMS, DOOLIN, and HARGRAVE, JJ.

concur.

LAVENDER, C.J., and OPALA, J. concur by reason

of stare decisis.

HODGES, J., dissents.

Tt is further ordered that such opinion with

such language added and with said ellipsis symbol

APPENDIX E

deleted (and as heretofore ordered corrected and so

corrected, including correction of the vote of the

: Justices), shall otherwise remain in full force and

effect,

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN

CONFERENCE this 22nd day of September, 1980.

. s/Robert E. Lavender

Chief Justice

APPENDIX E

‘

| APPENDIX F

FILED

SEPTEMBER 22, 1980

ROSS N. LILLARD, JR.

? CLERK

. SUPREME COURT

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Monday, September 22, 1980

THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:

51,906 P.W. Currey And Mrs. James D. Currey d/b/a

Currey And Currey v. Corporation Com mission

of Oklahoma; Dan R. Dunnett, Director Of

Conservation For Corporation Commission of

Oklahoma,

Rehearing denied.

(NOTE: Other orders on cases not relevant have been

deleted)

S/Robert E, Lavender

CHIEF JUSTICE

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) MANDATE

). &.

SUPREME COURT )

P.W.CURREY AND MRS.

JAMES D.CURREY d/b/a

CURREY &CURREY a/k/a

CURREY, SHIELDS & CURREY,

vs. No. 51,906

CORPORATION COMMISSION

OF OKLA.; DAN R. DUNNETT, Corporation Com mission

DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION of Oklahoma

FOR CORPORATION PD-82-36

ee ee ee ee ee eet eet ee eet ee ee ee

COMMISSION OF OKLA.,

THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA:

To the Honorable Judge of the Corporation

Com mission of Oklahoma in said State of Oklahoma.

Whereas, the Supreme Court of the State

of Oklahoma, did on the 12th day of June, 1980

render an opinion in the above entitled cause,

appealed from the Corp. Comm. Court of Oklahoma

ORDER OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AFFIRMED

See Attached Correction Order of September 22,

~ 1980.

APPENDIX G

Now, Therefore, you are hereby com manded

to cause such Affirmance to show of record in

your court and to issue such process and take

such other and further action as may be in accord

with right and justice and said opinion.

Witness, the Honorable Robert F. Lavender,

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State

of Oklahoma, at the City of Oklahoma City, this

25th day of September, 1980.

ROSS N. LILLARD JR., Clerk

By S/Pamela J. Barney Deputy.

APPENDIX G

"= APPENDIX "H"

APPLICABLE. PROVISIONS OF THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

The Congress Shall Have Power

keke

To regulate Com merce with foreign Nations, and

among the several States, and with the Indian .

Tribes;

zkxekerek

Article VI, Clause 2:

zkeaerk

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United

States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,

under the Authority of the United States, shall

be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges

in every State shall. be bound thereby, any Thing

APPENDIX H

in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the

Contrary notwithstanding.

zxe«eek

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX I

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL STATUTES

OKLAHOMA ENABLING ACT,

Act of June 16, 1906, c. 3335, §1,

34 Stat. 267

x*kekk

That the inhabitants of all that part of the

area of the United States now constituting the

Territory of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, as

at present described, may adopt a constitution and

become the State of Oklahoma, as_ hereinafter

provided: Provided, that nothing contained in the

said constitution shall be construed to limit or

impair the rights of persons or property pertaining,

to the Indians of said Territories (0 long as such

rights shall remain unextinguished) or to limit or

affect the authority of the Government of the United

States to make any law or regulation respecting such

APPENDIX I

Indians, their lands, property or other rights by

treaties agreement, law or otherwise, which it would

have been competent to make if this Act had never

been passed. (Pertinent portions underscored)

xkeek

Pub. L. 83-280, c.505, Act of August 15, 1953, §§6,

7, 67 Stat. 590:

xkkeetk

Sec. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of

any Enabling Act for the admission of a State, the

consent of the United States is hereby given to the

people of any State to amend, where necessary, their

State constitution or existing statutes, as the case

may be, to remove any legal impediment to the

assumption of civil and criminal jurisdiction in

accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided, that the provisions of this Act shall not

become effective with respect to such assumption of

jurisdiction by any such State until the people

thereof have appropriately amended their State

constitution or statutes as the case may be.

(Emphasis original).

APPENDIX I

Sec. 7. The consent of the United States is

hereby given to any other State not have

jurisdiction with respect to criminal offenses or

civil causes of action, or with respect to both, as

provided for in this Act, to assume jurisdiction at

such time and in such manner as the people of the

State shall, by affirmative legislative action,

z obligate and hind the State to assumption thereof,

xxketk

Pub, L. 90-284, Act of April ll, 1968, Title IV,

§404, 82 Stat. 77, 79, 25 U.S. C. §1324.

reek

Sec. 404. Notwithstanding the provisions

of any enabling Act for the admission of a State,

the consent of the United States is hereby given to

the people of any State to amend, where necessary,

‘their State constitution or existing statutes, as

the case may be, to remove any legal impediment to

the assumption of civil or criminal jurisdiciton in

accordance with the provisions of this title. The

provisions of this titile shall not become effective

APPENDIX I

with respect to such assumption of jurisdiction by

any such State until the people thereof have

. appropriately amended their State constitution or

Statutes, as the case may be.

zxexetk

. Pub. L. 80-336, §0, Act of August 14, 1947, c. 459,

, 61 Stat. 731

zee

All restricted lands of the Five Civilized

Tribes are hereby made subject to all oil and gas

conservation laws of Oklahoma: Provided, that no

order of the Corporation Commission affecting

restricted Indian land. shall be valid as to such

land until submitted ole deereees «ty te

Secretary of the Interior or his duly authorized

representative. (Emphasis original)

zxxeek

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX J

APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS

A, 25 CFR Part 1 §§ _12-14-Applicahility

of Rules.

§L2 Applicability of regulations and

reserved authority of the Secretary of the Interior.

The regulations in Chapter I of Title 25 of the

Code of Federal Regulations are of general

application. Notwithstanding any limitations

contained in the regulations of this Chapter, the

Secretary retains the power to waive or make

exceptions to his regulations as found in Chapter I

of Title 25 of the code of Federal Regulations in

all cases where permitted by law and the Secretary

finds that such waiver or exception is in the best

interest of the Indians.

§L3 Scope.

Chapters I and II of this title contain the

bulk of the regulations of the Department of the

APPENDIX J

Interior of general application relating to Indian

affairs. Subtitle B, Chapter I, Title 43 of the

Code of Federal Regulations contains rules relating

to the relationship of Indians to public lands and

townsites, Subtitle A of Title 43 of the Code of

Federal Regulations has application to certain

aspects of Indian affairs and among other things,

contains procedural rules for appellate and other

administrative review and for practice before the

Department of the Interior, of which the Bureau of

Indian Affairs is a part. Indian health matters are

covered in 42 CFR Part 36. Title 30 of the Code of

Federal Regulations contains regulations on ail and

gas and other mining operations, which, under

certain circumstances, may be applicable to Indian

resources,

(25 FR 3124, Apr.l2, 1960, as amended at 40 FR

20625, May 12, 1975)

§1.4 State and local regulation of the use

of Indian property.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of

this section, none of the laws, ordinances, codes,

rules or other of State

APPENDIX J

the use or development of any real or personal

property, including _water__rights, __shall_be

to such leased from or held

Or_used under agreement with and belonging to any

Indian _or Indian tribe, band, or community that is

held in trust by the United States or is subject to

a__restriction against alienation imposed by the

United States.

(b) The Secretary of the Interior ao his

authorized representative may in specific cases or

in specific geographic areas adopt or make

applicable to Indian lands all or any part of such

laws, ordinances, codes, resdlutions, rules or

other regulations referred to in paragraph (a) of

this section as he shall determine to be in the best

interest of the Indian owner or owners in achieving

the highest and best use of such property. In

determining whether, or to what extent, such laws,

ordinances, codes, resdlutions, rules or other

regulations shall be adopted or made applicable, the

Secretary or his authorized representative may

APPENDIX J

consult with the Indian owner or owners and may

consider the use of, and restrictions or limitations

on the use of, other property in the vicinity, and

such other factors as he shall deem appropriate.

(30 FR 7520, June 9, 1965) (Pertinent portions

underscored)

B. 25 CFR Part 183, §183.1 (1954 Ed.) —- "Leasing

of Restricted Sands of Members of Five Civilized

Tribes, Oklahoma, for Mining.”

§182.1 Definitions. The term "Area Director”

in this part refers to the officer in charge of the

Five Civilized Tribes Indian Agency. Whenever the

term "superintendent" is used in this part, the term

"Area Director" shall be substituted therefor.

The term “supervisor” in this part refers to a

representative of the Secretary of the Interior

under direction of the Director of the United States

Geological Survey Geological Survey, authorized and

empowered to supervise and direct operations under

on et a x the” etn lease, to furnish

ecientific and technical information and advice, to

ascertain and record the amount and value of

production, and to determine and record rentals and

royalties due and paid.

APPENDIX J

. -

(6 F.R. 9192, Sept. Il, 195])

C. 30 CFR, Part 221 §§221L3-22L5 inclusive 0949

Ed.) — “Oil and Gas Operating Regulations,” .

§22L3 Jurisdiction. Drilling and producing

Operations, handling and gaging of oil and the |

measurement of gas and other products,

determination of royalty liability, receipt and

delivery to those entitiled thereto of rayalty

accruing to the lessor and paid in amount and manner

Of peyiheck of Camegen ensued ‘unvier akboeiy. cf

the regulations in this part for defaults of

non-compliance with duties by the lessee and, in

general, all operations subject to the regulations

in this part are under the jurisdiction of the

Supervisor for any district as delineated by the

Director. As to producing leases of Indian lands,

the officer in charge, and as to lands within naval

petraleum reserves, the supervisor shall determine

rental liability, record rentals, royalties, and

other payments, and maintain lease accounts. Upon

request, the supervisor or the Director will advise

any person concerning the regulations in this part,

and will furnish technical information and advice

APPENDIX J

relative to oil and gas development and operation on

§22L4 General functions. The supervisor is

hereby authorized to Heinle compliance with lease

terms, with the regulations in this part, and all

other applicable regulations, and with applicable

law to the end that all operations shall conform to

the best practice and shall be conducted in such

Manner as to protect the deposits of the leased

lands and result in the maximum ultimate recovery of _

oil, gas, or other products with minimum waste,

Inasmuch as conditions in one area may vary widely

from conditions in another area, the regulations in

this part are general, and detailed procedure

hereunder in any particular area is subject to the

judgement and discretion of the supervisor, and to

any areal plan of development that may be adopted

pursuant to law. The supervisor may require

Satisfactory evidence that a lease is in good

Standing, that the lessee or operator is authorized

to conduct operations, and that an acceptable bond

has been filed before permitting operations on the

leased land.

APPENDIX J

§22L5 Supervision. of operations, The

Supervisor shall inspect and supervise operations

under the regulations in this part; prevent waste,

damage to formations or deposits containing oil, gas

or water or to coal measures or other mineral

deposits, and injury to life or property; and shall

issue instructions necessary, in his judgment, to

accomplish these purposes,

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX K

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

Okla, Constitution, Art. 1, §3

The people inhabiting the State do agree ani

declare _ that they forever disclaim all right and

title _in_or to any unappropriated public lands lying

within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands

lying within said limits owned or held by any

Indian, tribe, or nation; and that until the title

to any such land shall have been extinguished

by the United States, the same shall be and remain

Subject to the jurisdiction, disposal, and control

of the United States. Land belonging to citizens of

the United States residing without the limits of the

State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the

land belonging to residents thereof. No taxes shall

be imposed by the State on lands or property

belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by

the United States oor reserved for its use.

(Applicable provisions underscored).

APPENDIX K

*.%

APPENDIX "L"

APPLICABLE. PROVISIONS OF

Title 52, Oklahoma Statutes 1971 §243:

The Corporation Commission shall have authority to

make regulations for the prevention of waste of

natural gas, and for the protection of all natural

gas, fresh water, and oil bearing strata encountered

in any well drilled for oil or natural gas, and to

make such other rules and regulations as may be

necessary to enforce this act.

Title 52, Oklahoma Statutes 1971 §273

***the Corporation Commission shall have

authority to make rules and regulations for the

prevention of such waste, and for the protection of

all fresh water strata, and oil and gas bearing

strata, encountered in any well drilled for oil

Title 17, Oklahoma Statutes 1971, §§51-53:

(§5) The Corporation Commission is hereby

empowered and authorized to create and establish an

oil and gas department under the jurisdiction and

Supervision of the Corporation Commission, and is

APPENDIX L

hereby authorized to appoint with the approval and

consent of the Governor, a chief oil and gas

conservation agent who shall have charge of the oil

and gas department herein authorized."

(§52) All authority and duties now

conferred upon the Corporation Commission or other

departments of the State government in reference to

the conservation of ail and gas and the drilling and

Operating ail and gas wells and the construction and

regulation of oil and gas pipe lines, are hereby

conferred exclusively upon the Corporation

Com mission,

(S53) The Corporation Commission is hereby

authorized to prescribe rules and regulations for

the plugging of all abandoned cil and gas wells.

The same shall be plugged under the direction and

Supervision of the conservation agents of the

Corporation Commission as may be prescribed by the

Corporation Commission. All orders and regulations

in reference to plugging wells shall be made after

general hearing as now presecribed by law for the

promulgation of orders by the Corporation

Com mission.

APPENDIX L

Title 75, Oklahoma Statutes 1971 § 184 relating

to the decennial codification of statutes.

The Oklahoma Statutes 1971, compiled,

codified and annotated and indexed under the

provisions of House Bill No. 1085, Title 75, Chapter

6A, Oklahoma Session Laws 1971, Page 266, and

compiled, codified and annotated under the

Supervision of the Justices of the Supreme Court of

the State of Oklahoma and approved by them on

November 9, 1971, and promulgated and published by

John Rogers, Secretary of State, under proclamation

dated January 5, 1972; said Oklahoma Statutes being

further identified as four volumes,’ Volume 1

containing pages 1 to 1616, inclusive, Volume 2

containing pages 1617 to 3324, inclusive, Valume 3

containing pages 3325 to 5157, inclusive, and Valume

4 containing pages 5159 to 6604, inclusive, are

hereby adopted as the Code and Revised Statutes of

Statutes 1971, and that all general laws of the

State of Oklahoma not therein contained are hereby

repealed; Provided, however, that this act shall not

be construed to repeal or in any way affect or

modify any special or local laws or any law making

APPENDIX L

an appropriation or any law relating to any special

dischice, Cc Validating’ ect oc any law. affecting ‘any

bond issue or by which any bond issue may have been

authorized, not to affect any pending preceedings or

any existing rights or remedies, nor the running of

the Statutes of Limitations in force at the time of

the approval of this act; but all such local and

special laws, laws making appropriations, laws

relating to special elections, validating acts, and

laws relating to or authorizing bond issues, pending

yiccaslingk: “Gal diately tips end coewed, ont

Statutes of Limitations running and in force at the

time of the approval of this act shall continue and

exist in all respects as if this act had not been

passed. Provided, further, that this act shall not

be construed to alter, change, impair, disparage,

vest or divest, or_in any way affect any right or

interest of the United States, the State of

Oklahoma, any of the Five Civilized Tribes, or other

Tribes or Nations of Indians within the State of

Oklahoma.

(Laws 1972, c.. 19, § ll, eff. | Feb, 7, 1972.)

(Pertinent portions underscored).

APPENDIX L

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.