[¶ 1] Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in dismissing Appellants’ appeal because Appellants appealed Sovereign Land Permits No. S-2095 and S-2398 directly to District Court after Appellee North Dakota Department of Water Resources (ND DWR) issued S-2095 and S-2398 to Appellee BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) on April 24, 2023 (and BNSF immediately began construction under those permits) without first filing a contested case administrative complaint or otherwise request a second hearing under N.D.C.C. § 61-03-22 raising the same issues Appellants had already raised by filing extensive written comments in both permit proceedings (S-2095 and S-2398) and making extensive oral comments in the public comment hearing/“meeting” held by ND DWR for S-2095 on January 20th, 2023, and in the public comment hearing/“meeting” held by ND DWR for S-2398 on March 3, 2023? This issue has two sub-issues:
A. Whether ND DWR can issue Sovereign Land Permits S-2095 and S-2398 without preparation and certification of a record as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-44(1), which states that “An administrative agency shall maintain an official record of each adjudicative proceeding or other administrative proceeding heard by it”? (Emphasis supplied.) Appellants moved and the District Court granted Appellants’ motion for an expedited preparation of the record for both S-2095 and S-2398, but ND DWR refused to prepare the record, claiming that Appellants written and oral comments in S-2095 and S-2398 were not part of the record, and failing to certify any record to the District Court with or without Appellants’ oral and written comments for both administrative proceedings.
B. Whether oral and written comments filed in a sovereign lands permit proceeding, which is an “adjudicative proceeding [that] does not involve a hearing on a complaint against a specific-named respondent” under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-21(3)(a), must be re-made and re-filed in a contested case proceeding after the sovereign land permits had been issued by ND DWR to BNSF in S-2095 and S-2398, and construction had commenced under those permits? Had FORB utilized N.D.C.C. § 61-03-22, as suggested by the District Court, it would have caused a de novo adjunctive hearing and been tantamount to admitting the two two-hour hearings (meetings) in which Appellants made oral comments on those permits on January 20, 2023, and March 3, 2023, did not exist and the hundreds of pages of written comments submitted to the Department did not exist or were of no effect legally. There is no case law or other precedent that supports Appellees’ position concerning N.D.C.C. § 61-03-22, and there are numerous cases involving appeals in permit proceedings directly to district court under N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32 that support appellants’ position, that permit proceedings must have an official record, and that members of the public that have participated in permit proceedings may appeal the final permit decision to district court based on the record they have created in the permit proceeding.

[¶1] Whether the district court properly dismissed Appellants’ administrative appeal of permits issued by the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), which Appellants filed in the district court without first requesting an adjudicative hearing from DWR after the permits were issued, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction?
[¶2] Whether Appellants’ failure to serve the proper parties provides an alternative ground for affirmance?

Did the district court properly dismiss the Appellants’ (collectively FORB) administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?