Is gravel a mineral? Answer could decide Casper Mountain’s fate
CASPER — Is gravel a mineral? One may think so, but the Natrona County Board of County Commissioners would disagree.
The answer to that question could decide the fate of much of Casper Mountain’s surface and whether Prism Logistics’s controversial gravel mines get built.
One of the key arguments made by the attorneys representing county commissioners was that the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that gravel is not a mineral. If that holds, the attorneys argue that Prism’s two remaining leases and the four that expired wouldn’t be mineral leases, but rather commercial or industrial leases.
That matters because the county has the authority to enforce its zoning laws on state lands governed by commercial or industrial leases, according to the county’s attorney. If the leases are instead for mineral extraction, both Prism and the county appear to agree that counties can’t “prevent any use or occupancy reasonably necessary to the extraction or production of mineral resources,” as written in the county’s brief.
Both Prism and the county acknowledge in their arguments that state statute requires the holders of commercial or industrial leases comply with local zoning.
The issue
The ongoing lawsuit is one of multiple that has been filed between county commissioners and Prism Logistics going back to October 2024.
In 2023, the state board issued leases for eight tracts of land near Casper Mountain, six of which were renewed in 2024. Two more are up for reconsideration in October.
Residents strongly opposed the leases at county meetings as early as March 2024, citing concerns about water pollution, dust and health concerns. That input led the county board to explore ways to prevent the potential mines from taking off, including considering a weight limit on roads leading to the lands — which the county ultimately declined to pursue — and rezoning lands to prevent extractive services, which is the path commissioners took.
Another lawsuit filed by Prism was dismissed in June, which lifted the stay on the ongoing case.
In a September 2024 meeting, county commissioners amended zoning resolutions to ban “extractive industries” from specified areas of the county, including the six parcels of land that Prism had already received exploratory leases for from the Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners.
Those specified areas were confined to the Mountain Residential-1 district of county land, which covers portions of Casper Mountain and the areas in which Prism held the leases.
“Intending to prohibit Prism from utilizing leases it held with the state board, Natrona County asserted that the zoning resolution applied to land owned by the State of Wyoming,” according to the brief filed by the company.
Each of the leases includes language permitting Prism “the right to explore for, extract and remove sand, gravel, rock, crushed rock for aggregate and borrow material” on the lands granted to it by the lease.
Prism’s argument
Prism’s argument, outlined in a brief it filed in July, largely relies on the conclusion that the leases Prism signed with the State Board of Land Commissioners were mineral leases. Prism argues that the language of its lease classifies gravel as a mineral and therefore governs it as a mineral lease.
The company’s attorney references the title of the lease, which states “ROCK AND ASSORTED MINERALS LEASE” with the subtitle “sand, gravel, rock crushed for aggregate and borrow material.”
Prism also argues the county doesn’t have the authority to regulate state lands.
In the case of Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners, which is heavily referenced by Prism, the state Supreme Court found that businesses operating on state lands under temporary use permits are not subject to local regulations.
In that case, locals — including the county board and a water protection group — opposed the vacation rental. The county sent an abatement notice to the lessee, claiming the group violated seven land development regulations, according to documentation from the state Supreme Court’s decision.
Justices sided with the state land board, finding “the State Board and its permittees are not subject to a county’s land use and development regulations.”
County’s response
Before addressing the issue of whether gravel is a mineral, the county requested the case be dismissed on the grounds of its “mootness.”
In essence, the county argues that “a petitioner seeking review of administrative action must have standing in the same manner as those filing a civil action,” requiring the petitioner to actually have “a legally recognizable interest” in the matter at hand through the entirety of the litigation.
Since its last remaining land leases in the areas at issue expire on Oct. 1 — and were not renewed by the state board — the county claims Prism will no longer be subject to the zoning regulations, thus removing its status as an aggrieved party.
“Upon the expiration of those remaining leases, Prism will be unable to describe how it is ‘aggrieved by the County Board’s Amendment and will have no protectible legal interest,” according to the filing.
In the event the court doesn’t buy that argument, the next 22 pages revolve around three points: One, that the county board’s authority allows it to regulate sand and gravel operations within Natrona County; two, that right extends to state-owned lands within the county; and three, the state land board doesn’t have the authority to expand what constitutes a mineral lease “through its own regulations or leases.”
All three of those sections rely upon one legal conclusion from 1988: that gravel is not a mineral in the state of Wyoming.
The case law cited by the county’s attorney acknowledges that “while gravel in the technical sense belongs to the mineral kingdom, it is usually not considered a mineral within the ordinary meaning of the word.”
“In our opinion substances such as sand, gravel and limestone are not minerals within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word unless they are rare and exceptional in character or possess a peculiar property giving them special value, as for example sand that is valuable for making glass and limestone of such quality that it may profitably be manufactured into cement,” the opinion elaborates.
The county argues that despite the state land board’s use of the word “mineral” in its lease, acknowledging the lease as a mineral lease would effectively be allowing the board to broaden its own powers, even though its powers are limited to what is granted it by the legislature.
In a nutshell, the county insists the materials granted to Prism in its lease are not minerals, making the lease not a mineral lease, which causes it to fall under the umbrella of commercial or industrial leases subject to county zoning regulations in state statute.
Prism has until Sept. 23 to file its reply to the county’s brief.
This story was published on Sept. 11, 2025.