United States groundwater law

Last updated

United States groundwater law is that area of United States law related to groundwater.

Contents

Groundwater can either be privately owned or publicly owned. Groundwater owned by the State is usually distributed through an appropriation system. Privately owned groundwater may allow unlimited production or limited production rights based on land ownership or liability rules. It is possible to regulate the spacing of wells and groundwater production under any of these systems, but the methods, effectiveness and results of that regulation varies greatly from one system to the next depending on the type of aquifer to be regulated. Effective regulation is tailored to both the hydrology and economics of the region to be regulated. Below is a short discussion of each system and the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Rule of capture

The Rule of Capture is a non-liability tort law that provides each landowner the ability to capture as much groundwater as they can put to a beneficial use, but they are not guaranteed any set amount of water. As a result, well-owners are not liable to other landowners for damaging their wells or taking water from beneath their land. The Rule of Capture allows the capture of groundwater only to the extent the use is beneficial and not malicious. The advantage of this system is that it encourages economic development and maximum utilization of the available resources. Another advantage of this system is that it leads to minimal government involvement in the operations of water wells. The primary disadvantage of this system is the potential for overproduction of the aquifer system that may result when each landowner attempts to protect the water right by drilling bigger, deeper wells. Because no landowner is given a quantifiable or set amount of production capacity, all landowners are encouraged to capture as much water as they can as quickly as they can.

Riparian rights

Correlative groundwater rights represent a limited private ownership right similar to riparian rights in a surface stream. The amount of groundwater right is based on the size of the surface area where each landowner gets a corresponding amount of the available water. Once adjudicated, the maximum amount of the water right is set, but the right can be decreased if the total amount of available water decreases as is likely during a drought. Landowners may sue others for encroaching upon their groundwater rights, and water pumped for use on the overlying land takes preference over water pumped for use off the land. This system benefits those who have low demand for water but own large expanses of property - such as ranchers - and harms those who have a high demand for water without correspondingly large tracts of land - such as cities and some irrigators. Only California follows the correlative right system for groundwater, although many states follow a similar system for oil and gas production. Water is a rechargeable resource and so the amount of the water right may be reduced, marketing the groundwater right can be difficult. The preference for water uses on the land makes it difficult to market the water or water rights.

Reasonable use rule

The third system involving private ownership rights is the liability rule known as the American Rule or Reasonable Use Rule. This rule does not guarantee the landowner a set amount of water, but allows unlimited extraction as long as the result does not unreasonably damage other wells or the aquifer system. Usually this rule gives great weight to historical uses and prevents new uses that interfere with the prior use. The determination of who gets a well and how much water may be pumped is usually made by a court unless the state creates a regulatory agency to perform that function, and the primary issue is the "reasonableness" of the use. The advantage to this system is its flexibility in adjudicating competing uses of an aquifer system. Unfortunately, this same flexibility can lead to excessive litigation because well owners may sue at any time to determine if a competing use is "reasonable", a standard that may change with time. The reasonableness standard is also highly dependent on the location of the suit and who ends up in the jury pool. Marketing water rights does not take place until the system is fully adjudicated; new users generally do not purchase groundwater rights until they are sure they cannot obtain "free" water through litigation.

Many states, especially in the western United States, claim ownership of groundwater and allocate the resource through an appropriative system just as they would any surface right. Typically water rights are appropriated based on each aquifer's sustainable yield, and once all the rights are granted no further permits will be issued. Some states allow the permits to be marketed and some do not. Where the water is not owned by the state and the tort law proves to be an inadequate means to prevent overproduction, states have created administrative regulatory agencies to allocate groundwater rights between competing landowners. In those cases the administrative law essentially supplants the tort law, making the tort remedy (or lack thereof) irrelevant.

See also

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water resources law</span> Law and regulations that relate to water resources

Water resources law is the field of law dealing with the ownership, control, and use of water as a resource. It is most closely related to property law, and is distinct from laws governing water quality.

Riparian water rights is a system for allocating water among those who possess land along its path. It has its origins in English common law. Riparian water rights exist in many jurisdictions with a common law heritage, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and states in the eastern United States.

Water right in water law is the right of a user to use water from a water source, e.g., a river, stream, pond or source of groundwater. In areas with plentiful water and few users, such systems are generally not complicated or contentious. In other areas, especially arid areas where irrigation is practiced, such systems are often the source of conflict, both legal and physical. Some systems treat surface water and ground water in the same manner, while others use different principles for each.

<i>Rylands v Fletcher</i> Landmark House of Lords decision on tort law

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trespass to land</span> Use of land prevented by local property laws

Trespass to land is a common law tort or crime that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. In some jurisdictions, this rule may also apply to entry upon public land having restricted access. A court may order payment of damages or an injunction to remedy the tort.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edwards Aquifer</span> Source of drinking water in Texas

The Edwards Aquifer is one of the most prolific artesian aquifers in the world. Located on the eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau in the U.S. state of Texas, it is the source of drinking water for two million people, and is the primary water supply for agriculture and industry in the aquifer's region. Additionally, the Edwards Aquifer feeds the Comal and San Marcos Springs, provides springflow for recreational and downstream uses in the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and San Marcos river basins, and is home to several unique and endangered species.

In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right," the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law adjusts (colors) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

Lateral and subjacent support, in the law of property, describes the right a landowner has to have that land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. If a neighbor's excavation or excessive extraction of underground liquid deposits causes subsidence, such as by causing the landowner's land to cave in, the neighbor will be subject to strict liability in a tort action. The neighbor will also be strictly liable for damage to buildings on the landowner's property if the landowner can show that the weight of the buildings did not contribute to the collapse of the land. If the landowner is unable to make such a showing, the neighbor must be shown to have been negligent in order for the landowner to recover damages.

The rule of capture or law of capture, part of English common law and adopted by a number of U.S. states, establishes a rule of non-liability for captured natural resources including groundwater, oil, gas, and game animals. The general rule is that the first person to "capture" such a resource owns that resource. For example, landowners who extract or “capture” groundwater, oil, or gas from a well that bottoms within the subsurface of their land acquire absolute ownership of the substance even if it is drained from the subsurface of another’s land. The landowner who captures the substance owes no duty of care to other landowners. For example, a water well owner may dry up wells owned by adjacent landowners without fear of liability unless the groundwater was withdrawn for malicious purposes, the groundwater was not put to a beneficial use without waste, or "such conduct is a proximate cause of the subsidence of the land of others." A corollary of that rule is that a person who drills for groundwater, oil, or gas may not extract the substance from a well that bottoms within the subsurface estate of another by drilling on a slant.

Oil and gas law in the United States is the branch of law that pertains to the acquisition and ownership rights in oil and gas both under the soil before discovery and after its capture, and adjudication regarding those rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drainage law</span> Area of water law related to drainage of surface water

Drainage law is a specific area of water law related to drainage of surface water on real property. It is particularly important in areas where freshwater is scarce, flooding is common, or water is in high demand for agricultural or commercial purposes.

The correlative rights doctrine is a legal doctrine limiting the rights of landowners to a common source of groundwater to a reasonable share, typically based on the amount of land owned by each on the surface above. This doctrine is also applied to oil and gas in some U.S. states.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<i>Cline v. American Aggregates Corp.</i>

Cline v. American Aggregates Corporation, 474 N.E.2d 324, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio that first applied the reasonable use doctrine to water use in that state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water law in the United States</span>

Water law in the United States refers to the Water resources law laws regulating water as a resource in the United States. Beyond issues common to all jurisdictions attempting to regulate water's uses, water law in the United States must contend with:

Groundwater banking is a water management mechanism designed to increase water supply reliability. Groundwater can be created by using dewatered aquifer space to store water during the years when there is abundant rainfall. It can then be pumped and used during years that do not have a surplus of water. People can manage the use of groundwater to benefit society through the purchasing and selling of these groundwater rights. The surface water should be used first, and then the groundwater will be used when there is not enough surface water to meet demand. The groundwater will reduce the risk of relying on surface water and will maximize expected income. There are regulatory storage-type aquifer recovery and storage systems which when water is injected into it gives the right to withdraw the water later on. Groundwater banking has been implemented into semi-arid and arid southwestern United States because this is where there is the most need for extra water. The overall goal is to transfer water from low-value to high-value uses by bringing buyers and sellers together.

Water in Arkansas is an important issue encompassing the conservation, protection, management, distribution and use of the water resource in the state. Arkansas contains a mixture of groundwater and surface water, with a variety of state and federal agencies responsible for the regulation of the water resource. In accordance with agency rules, state, and federal law, the state's water treatment facilities utilize engineering, chemistry, science and technology to treat raw water from the environment to potable water standards and distribute it through water mains to homes, farms, business and industrial customers. Following use, wastewater is collected in collection and conveyance systems, decentralized sewer systems or septic tanks and treated in accordance with regulations at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) before being discharged to the environment.

<i>Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day and McDaniel</i> 2012 Supreme Court of Texas case

Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day and McDaniel is a judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas.

References