Quiet Title Act Exclusivity Forecloses APA/DJA Routes for Split‑Estate Subsurface Traversal Disputes: Commentary on True Oil, LLC v. Bureau of Land Management (10th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In True Oil, LLC v. Bureau of Land Management, the Tenth Circuit resolved a burgeoning conflict at the intersection of federal mineral ownership, modern horizontal drilling practices, and administrative law. The plaintiffs—True Ranches (surface owner) and True Oil (mineral owner in an adjacent tract)—sought to drill a horizontal “traversing” well from private surface, through federally owned subsurface minerals, to produce from private minerals in a neighboring tract. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) insisted an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) was required. Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), asking the court to declare BLM lacked authority to require permission for a well that would cross, but not produce from, federal minerals.

The district court ruled for BLM on the merits. On appeal, however, the Tenth Circuit did not reach the merits. Instead, it held that the dispute necessarily turns on property rights in federally owned minerals and therefore must be brought, if at all, under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), which provides the exclusive vehicle to adjudicate disputes over a “right, title, or interest” in real property claimed by the United States. The panel vacated the district court’s merits judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The opinion thus establishes a clear jurisdictional principle for the Tenth Circuit: when a plaintiff’s requested relief would require a judicial determination about competing property rights in lands or minerals in which the United States claims an interest—including the scope of the government’s right to exclude and a private party’s asserted right to traverse—such claims cannot proceed under the APA or DJA and must be brought under the QTA.

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit held that the QTA is the exclusive means of litigating disputes over “right, title, or interest” in real property in which the United States claims an interest, treating this exclusivity as a jurisdictional limitation within the circuit.
Plaintiffs’ claim—that the surface estate carries a property right to drill a traversing well through federally owned minerals without BLM consent, despite removal of some mineral cuttings—squarely presents a dispute over ownership rights in real property (including the government’s right to exclude). Accordingly, the claim falls within the QTA’s ambit.
Because the case was brought under the APA and DJA rather than the QTA, the district court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit vacated the merits judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The court did not decide whether BLM has statutory authority under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) to require an APD for traversing wells, nor did it address APA § 704’s “other adequate remedy” bar. It also did not reach BLM’s specific reason for denying authorization (an overlapping Montana district court order).

Case Background and Procedural Posture

The federal government reserved the minerals under a 160‑acre tract patented under the Stock‑Raising Homestead Act (SRHA) in 1922; True Ranches later acquired the surface estate, and True Oil owns minerals in an adjacent tract. To develop its private minerals, True Oil proposed a horizontal well that would originate on True Ranches’ surface and traverse the federally owned mineral estate to reach True Oil’s adjacent minerals. The well would not be completed for production within the federal minerals, but drilling would necessarily remove some federal mineral cuttings.

BLM informed True Oil that an APD was required. Initial communications also referenced a Montana district court order that had vacated (with a stay pending appeal) certain leases including the lease underlying the federal tract to be traversed; BLM construed the order as barring development activities on that tract absent court permission. Even after True Oil proposed an alternative traverse through a different federal lease unaffected by that order, BLM maintained that an APD was required to traverse any federal minerals in a split estate.

Plaintiffs filed suit under the APA and DJA, contending BLM lacked authority—either as mineral owner or under the MLA—to require permission for a non‑producing traverse. The district court ruled for BLM on the merits, holding BLM had adequate statutory and regulatory authority. On appeal, BLM argued for the first time that the suit should have been brought under the QTA; the Tenth Circuit agreed and treated the QTA’s exclusivity as a nonwaivable jurisdictional bar.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 (1983): The Supreme Court held that Congress intended the QTA to be “the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States’ title to real property.” This foundational principle frames the Tenth Circuit’s analysis: if the claim fits the QTA, it cannot proceed under other statutes.
Navajo Tribe of Indians v. New Mexico, 809 F.2d 1455 (10th Cir. 1987): Within the Tenth Circuit, Block’s exclusivity is treated as a jurisdictional limitation. Parties cannot circumvent the QTA by invoking other statutes. The True Oil panel relies on Navajo Tribe to classify the QTA’s exclusivity as jurisdictional and thus nonwaivable and reviewable at any stage.
Rosette, Inc. v. United States, 141 F.3d 1394 (10th Cir. 1998): Reaffirms that claims within the QTA’s scope cannot be brought under alternative statutory frameworks.
Southwest Four Wheel Drive Ass’n v. BLM, 363 F.3d 1069 (10th Cir. 2004): Confirms that if a claim cannot be stated under the QTA, federal courts lack jurisdiction; underscores the QTA’s exclusivity for title disputes involving the United States.
Kane County v. United States, 772 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014), abrogated on other grounds by Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152 (2023): Articulates a two‑part test for QTA coverage: the United States must claim an interest, and “title” must be disputed—where “disputed title” includes disputes about ownership rights and interests, not just fee simple title. True Oil applies that test.
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012): Recognizes that the QTA extends to suits by a plaintiff asserting a “right, title, or interest” in real property that conflicts with a United States‑claimed interest. True Oil uses Patchak to read § 2409a(d) broadly across property interests.
Kinscherff v. United States, 586 F.2d 159 (10th Cir. 1978): Easements are real property interests subject to quiet title actions; illustrates that the QTA’s scope extends beyond fee ownership to other property interests.
Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2009): The Ninth Circuit adopted a pragmatic approach: suits that challenge title fit within the QTA regardless of remedy sought, but tort suits that do not challenge title or the scope of property rights do not. True Oil distinguishes Robinson: there was no dispute over the scope of the easement in Robinson, while True Oil presents a direct conflict over ownership rights (right to exclude versus right to traverse).
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021): The “right to exclude” is a core attribute of property. True Oil uses this to explain that the United States’ fee simple mineral ownership includes the right to exclude access, which plaintiffs contest.
Smith v. B&G Royalties, 469 P.3d 1206 (Wyo. 2020): Under Wyoming law, a mineral estate is a fee simple estate with the incidents of ownership. The panel consults state property law to illuminate the nature of the government’s mineral estate.
Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC, 520 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. 2017): Cited for the definition of the “right to develop” as an “exclusive right to possess, use, and appropriate” minerals, underscoring the property character of the dispute over subsurface access.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010); Amoco Prod. Co. v. United States, 619 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1980); Vincent Murphy Chevrolet Co. v. United States, 766 F.2d 449 (10th Cir. 1985): These cases explain the methodology—federal law governs the QTA, but state law can aid in determining the nature of real property interests, so long as it aligns with federal policy.
Montanans for Multiple Use v. Barbouletos, 568 F.3d 225 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Shawnee Trail Conservancy v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 222 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000): Other circuits treat QTA exclusivity as jurisdictional in practice, reinforcing the Tenth Circuit’s approach.
Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152 (2023): While Wilkins held the QTA’s 12‑year time bar is non‑jurisdictional, True Oil’s jurisdictional holding concerns the QTA’s exclusivity vis‑à‑vis other causes of action—a distinct question the Tenth Circuit continues to treat as jurisdictional under Navajo Tribe and related precedent.

Legal Reasoning

QTA exclusivity is jurisdictional in the Tenth Circuit. Drawing from Block and Navajo Tribe, the panel reiterates that when a claim is within the QTA’s ambit, courts lack subject‑matter jurisdiction to hear it under other statutes (such as the APA or DJA). Because it is jurisdictional, the issue can be raised for the first time on appeal and must be addressed sua sponte if necessary.
The QTA’s scope includes disputes over ownership rights, not just fee title. Relying on the statutory text (§ 2409a(d)) and case law, the court emphasizes that “right, title, or interest” covers easements and analogous interests. The Kane County test is satisfied if (i) the United States claims an interest in the property and (ii) the dispute concerns ownership rights in that property.
Application to this dispute: the United States’ claimed interest and a “disputed title.”
- The federal government holds fee simple title to the subsurface minerals. A core incident of that title is the right to exclude. Plaintiffs assert a surface‑based right to traverse the federal minerals without BLM consent and even with the removal of mineral cuttings.
- The court characterizes plaintiffs’ claim as asserting a limited trespass/taking entitlement against the federal mineral estate—a property right that would diminish the government’s ownership rights. That conflict creates a “disputed title” in the QTA sense (i.e., disputed ownership rights), even if the parties agree who owns fee title to the minerals.
Distinguishing non‑title tort claims. Unlike Robinson, where the parties agreed about the scope of the easement and the suit sounded in tort (encroachments and subsidence), True Oil turns on defining the parties’ respective property rights—government’s right to exclude versus surface owner’s claimed subsurface traversal right.
No standalone statutory claim was presented. Although plaintiffs framed the case as an APA “excess of authority” challenge, the panel notes their own briefing repeatedly acknowledges the need for a “property rights determination.” The court declines to invent a hypothetical APA claim unmoored from the property‑rights premise.
APA § 704 not reached. BLM separately argued that APA review is unavailable because the QTA provides an “other adequate remedy in a court.” The panel expressly does not reach this ground, as QTA exclusivity resolves jurisdiction first.

Impact

Immediate procedural consequence: Operators and landowners in Tenth Circuit states (CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY) seeking to establish a right to traverse federal minerals without federal consent cannot proceed under the APA/DJA. They must bring a QTA action against the United States and satisfy the QTA’s requirements, including pleading with particularity, choosing the right forum, and navigating the statute of limitations and exceptions.
Practical effect on oil and gas development: The ruling likely dampens efforts to avoid BLM oversight of “traversing wells” by disclaiming production from federal minerals. If a developer wants judicial confirmation that it may cross federal minerals without BLM permission, the forum is a QTA suit centered on property rights, not an APA challenge to agency authority.
Government operations: BLM can maintain its position that traversing the federal mineral estate implicates federal property rights—even where no federal production is planned—without having to defend that position in APA litigation premised on statutory overreach. However, the decision does not resolve whether BLM in fact has that authority or whether the surface owner has a traversal right; it merely identifies the correct vehicle for adjudication.
Doctrinal clarity on APA “workarounds”: The decision guards against reframing property disputes as administrative law claims. If the requested relief requires the court to resolve the scope of the United States’ property rights, the QTA governs.
Future litigation posture: Expect more QTA filings testing whether, and to what extent, a surface estate carries a right to cross federal minerals for non‑producing access. Those suits may require detailed state law property analyses (informed by federal law) concerning split estates under instruments like the SRHA.
Open merits questions remain: The Tenth Circuit’s decision does not answer whether the MLA authorizes BLM to require APDs for non‑producing traversals, whether the SRHA or other federal statutes reserve or limit such a traversal right in surface owners, or how state property doctrines (e.g., accommodation doctrine, correlative rights) interact with federal ownership claims in this context.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Split estate: One party owns the surface; another owns the minerals beneath. Under the SRHA and similar reservations, the United States often retained the minerals when disposing of surface estates.
Traversing well: A horizontal wellbore that passes through a tract (here, federal minerals) to reach and produce from an adjacent non‑federal tract. The operator disclaims production from the traversed tract but may necessarily remove small amounts of mineral cuttings during drilling.
APD (Application for Permit to Drill): BLM’s permit for drilling operations on federal or Indian lands or where federal minerals are implicated. Operators often seek to avoid APDs by asserting that no federal minerals will be produced.
Quiet Title Act (QTA): The statute that waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for suits to adjudicate a “right, title, or interest” in real property claimed by the United States. It is the exclusive avenue for such disputes. District courts have exclusive original jurisdiction; the complaint must plead with particularity the plaintiff’s claimed interest, how it was acquired, and the interest claimed by the United States. The QTA has a 12‑year limitations period that runs from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the United States’ adverse claim, and contains important exceptions (e.g., for trust or restricted Indian lands).
“Right to exclude” as a stick in the bundle: A core incident of property ownership is the right to keep others off or out. When plaintiffs assert a right to cross federal minerals without permission, they challenge the scope of the government’s right to exclude—i.e., they assert their own property interest that would limit the government’s.
Why APA and DJA won’t work here: The APA provides review of final agency action when there is no other adequate remedy in court and when the claim does not depend on resolving property ownership rights. The DJA confers a remedy, not jurisdiction. Because the QTA is both exclusive and provides a court remedy for property disputes, plaintiffs cannot bypass it by relabeling their claim as “statutory” under the APA.

Practice Notes and Strategic Considerations

For operators and surface owners:
- Evaluate whether your objective requires a judicial declaration about property rights vis‑à‑vis federal minerals. If so, plan for a QTA suit.
- Assemble title evidence and historical instruments (e.g., patents, reservations) and develop a state‑law-informed theory of the property interest asserted.
- Be mindful of the QTA’s 12‑year limitations period, which runs from when you knew or should have known of the United States’ adverse claim (e.g., denial letters, consistent agency positions or regulations).
- Consider the risks of proceeding without BLM approval; civil and criminal penalties were threatened here. Absent a QTA judgment, BLM’s position is unlikely to change in the Tenth Circuit.
For the government:
- When confronted with suits that require delineation of property rights, raise QTA exclusivity early. Even if not raised, courts in the Tenth Circuit will consider it sua sponte as a jurisdictional matter.
- Preserve the record on the United States’ claimed property interest and the incidents of ownership to frame the dispute within QTA parameters.
For district courts:
- Screen APA/DJA cases that touch property interests for QTA exclusivity at the outset.
- Where the claim could be recast as a pure statutory challenge independent of property rights (cf. Patchak), clarify with the parties whether an ownership-rights determination is necessary to the requested relief.

Unanswered Questions and Likely Directions

Does the MLA authorize BLM to require APDs for non‑producing traversals? The Tenth Circuit did not decide this. A properly framed QTA case may need to be paired with, or may precipitate, statutory questions after property rights are defined.
What is the surface owner’s traversal right, if any, under federal and state law? Future QTA litigation will likely probe whether a surface estate includes a right of subsurface passage through federal minerals for off‑lease development and whether any SRHA‑based or other reservations alter that calculus.
Minimal mineral removal as a legal fulcrum: The court treated drill cuttings removal as reinforcing the property character of the dispute. Future litigants may test whether zero‑removal scenarios (e.g., theoretical boreholes) alter QTA coverage, though practical drilling realities may render “no removal” claims implausible.
Interaction with Wilkins and “jurisdictional” labeling: While Wilkins held the QTA’s time bar is non‑jurisdictional, the Tenth Circuit continues to treat QTA exclusivity as jurisdictional. Future Supreme Court guidance could refine this, but it would not likely change the bottom‑line exclusivity principle.
Indian lands exception: The QTA excludes claims involving trust or restricted Indian lands. While not implicated here, traversal disputes in other settings may confront that bar, further constraining APA routes if the suit depends on property rights adjudication.

Conclusion

True Oil delivers a clear and consequential jurisdictional rule for the Tenth Circuit: if resolving a dispute requires adjudicating competing property rights in land or minerals the United States claims—such as the government’s right to exclude access to its mineral estate versus a surface owner’s asserted right to traverse—the Quiet Title Act supplies the exclusive pathway to court. Attempts to recast such disputes as APA “excess of authority” challenges or DJA claims will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The decision does not answer whether BLM may require an APD for non‑producing traversals or whether a surface estate encompasses a traversal right under federal or state law. Instead, it channels those questions into the QTA, demanding that litigants frame and prove their property interests within that statutory scheme. For operators and landowners in split‑estate contexts, the message is strategic and immediate: to obtain judicial clearance to traverse federal minerals without BLM consent, prepare to litigate property rights under the QTA, not administrative power under the APA.