The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-01-21
CUTTING DOWN TIE FLOW.
A Legal Point in the City's Artesian
Wells Affecting Private Wells

A Legal Point in the City's Artesian
Wells Affecting Private Wells.
The operation OF the new water works ia
affecting a number OF artesisn wells about
the city by diminishing their flow. The
effect seems to be entirely on the wells east
and west, showing that the water strata of
the new water works wells must be in
that direction.
Since the new station began pumping the
wells at Jssperviile have stopped flowing
above the surface entirely, and those on
Maj. Ryals' and Mr. Lovell's places have
also been affected. The one ON Mr.. La
throp's place, north of the works has not
been injured in the least. On the eastern
side Of the city DR.. Stones well has shown
decreased flow. The following query and
reply was published i'll the New York Jour
nal Of Commerce q few days ago.
which indicates that one party here
thought he could hold the city liable for
damages for cutting down his water supply:
SAVANNAH, GA, Jan. g. 1893.
Editor Of the Journal Of Commerce:
We have row of houses on the eastern slope
OF this city which Las been supplied with water
for two years or more by an artesan well. bored
about in the center OF the row by me. The city
has just completed new water works. supplied
by some twelve I2-inch wells located out of the
city limits in westerly direction. About two
months ago the city started up the new
wafer works and il reduced the flow in
my we'll so much that in less than a
weeks time my we'll would not supply three of
my upper houses lily well was bored long be-
fore the city bored theirs and they now deprive
me of water as stated. Is not the city liable
for the damage they have done me, aud should
they not now give me water from their water
pipes without charged L. II.
Here is the answer to the letter:
Wherever the question has arisen, the courts,
both OF England and Of this country, have held
that water percolating through the earth, or
running beneath the surface in courses WHICH
are unknown, belongs to the realty IN which it
is found; that the owner of any well is not en-
titled 10 the water until it enters his WELL and
that he cannot enjoin the opening or mainten-
anc9 of new one which diverts the water
thererrom, nor recover for the damage which
this may cause him. One Of the lea ing cases In
this state is that of the village of Delhi VS. You
maus, IS n. y, 362. In this case the village
sought damages from the defendant for
digging well On his premises which diverted
the subterranean waters from two large and
valuable springs which had previously supplied
the village with water. The court of appeals
held that the defendant could not be enjofned
nor made to respond IN damages. See also 40
N. j. Eq., Az; 81 Ind, 161, and cases cited. II
an underground stream flows in a known or as
certainable channel, sometimes happens
where surface stream sinks beneath the ground
and afterward emerges, then the owner of the
ground under which the water flows is not en-
titled to divert 1t from its course, or materially
to lessen its volume The supreme court of
Georgia, the state from which our correspondent
writes, held both these principles to be sound in
a decision rendered In 1880. See Sc
Ga, 40 The language of the decision
is: while, as general rule, water
flowing under the surface may be diverted
without liability TO proprietor whose land it
might reach in its natural and ordinary course;
yet, where it has once emerged and afterward
sinks. II it's exact course can be traced to where
it emerges again, so as to render it certain thai
1t is the same water, the proprietor of the sur
face at the latter point will be protected in its
use the same as II it were not subuerranean
stream" The subject of subterrsnean waters
is dealt with in section 3019 Of the G. orga Code
follows: THE course of a stream Of water
underground, and its exact condition before its
first use, so difficult of ascertainment that
trespass cannot be brought for any supposed
interference with the rights of pro prietor "
The legislation and decisions in Georgia, as we'll
as those Of other states, make it certain that
our correspondent hes no remedy in the case he
puts,
Alderman Cam, chairman of the water
committee was shown the article, hus he
said no one to his knowledge had ever
threatened to sue the city IN the matter,
but the water committee, before starting
the new works, had the decision of City At-
torney Adams on the subject, which bears
out the Journal Of Commerce.