Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1341955.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:25:15+00:00

Document:
Bart SIPRIANO, Harold Fain, and Doris Fain, Petitioners, v. GREAT SPRING WATERS OF AMERICA, INC. a/k/a Ozarka Natural Spring Water Co. a/k/a Ozarka Spring Water Co. a/k/a Ozarka, Respondents.
Richard E. Swift, Jr., Pamela Rea, Palestine, for Petitioners. Boris A. Hidalgo, Christopher Paul Hanslik, Houston, for Respondents.
For over ninety years, this Court has adhered to the common-law rule of capture in allocating the respective rights and liabilities of neighboring landowners for use of groundwater flowing beneath their property. The rule of capture essentially allows, with some limited exceptions, a landowner to pump as much groundwater as the landowner chooses, without liability to neighbors who claim that the pumping has depleted their wells. We are asked today whether Texas should abandon this rule for the rule of reasonable use, which would limit the common-law right of a surface owner to take water from a common reservoir by imposing liability on landowners who “unreasonably” use groundwater to their neighbors' detriment. Relying on the settled rule of capture, the trial court granted summary judgment against landowners who sued a bottled-water company for negligently draining their water wells. The court of appeals affirmed.1 Because we conclude that the sweeping change to Texas's groundwater law Sipriano urges this Court to make is not appropriate at this time, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment.
Henderson County landowners Bart Sipriano, Harold Fain, and Doris Fain (Sipriano) sued Great Spring Waters of America, Inc., a/k/a Ozarka Natural Spring Water Co., for negligently draining their water wells. According to Sipriano's allegations, which we take as true for summary judgment purposes, Ozarka, in 1996, began pumping about 90,000 gallons of groundwater per day, seven days a week, from land near Sipriano's. Soon after the pumping began, Sipriano's wells were severely depleted. Sipriano sought injunctive relief, as well as actual and punitive damages for Ozarka's alleged nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, and malice.
This constitutional amendment, proposed and passed after our common-law decision in East, made clear that in Texas, responsibility for the regulation of natural resources, including groundwater, rests in the hands of the Legislature.
Thus, while we noted that the common law did not preclude a landowner from capturing and selling water for use off the land,16 we nonetheless made clear that the rule of capture has exceptions in Texas.
Thus we recognized the Legislature's broad powers to regulate use of groundwater following the 1917 amendment, even within the common-law tort framework established by the rule of capture.
The Legislature first exercised its constitutional authority to create groundwater conservation districts in 1949.34 And since then the Legislature has repeatedly revisited and modified the operation of groundwater conservation districts.35 Now, with Senate Bill 1, the Legislature has given more authority to locally-controlled groundwater conservation districts for establishing requirements for groundwater withdrawal permits 36 and for regulating water transferred outside the district.37 Senate Bill 1 also revised the “critical area” designation process to require the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and the Texas Water Development Board to identify areas anticipated to experience critical groundwater problems,38 and streamlined the process by which the TNRCC or the Legislature can create a district in these areas.39 Senate Bill 1 also included various provisions calling for more comprehensive and coordinated water planning.40 While the efficacy of the groundwater management methods the Legislature chose and implemented through Senate Bill 1 has been a matter of considerable debate, as the amicus briefs filed in this case reflect,41 we cannot say at this time that the Legislature has ignored its constitutional charge to regulate this natural resource.
By constitutional amendment, Texas voters made groundwater regulation a duty of the Legislature. And by Senate Bill 1, the Legislature has chosen a process that permits the people most affected by groundwater regulation in particular areas to participate in democratic solutions to their groundwater issues.42 It would be improper for courts to intercede at this time by changing the common-law framework within which the Legislature has attempted to craft regulations to meet this state's groundwater-conservation needs. Given the Legislature's recent actions to improve Texas's groundwater management, we are reluctant to make so drastic a change as abandoning our rule of capture and moving into the arena of water-use regulation by judicial fiat. It is more prudent to wait and see if Senate Bill 1 will have its desired effect, and to save for another day the determination of whether further revising the common law is an appropriate prerequisite to preserve Texas's natural resources and protect property owners' interests.
We do not shy away from change when it is appropriate. We continue to believe that “the genius of the common law rests in its ability to change, to recognize when a timeworn rule no longer serves the needs of society, and to modify the rule accordingly.” 43 And Sipriano presents compelling reasons for groundwater use to be regulated. But unlike in East, any modification of the common law would have to be guided and constrained by constitutional and statutory considerations. Given the Legislature's recent efforts to regulate groundwater, we are not persuaded that it is appropriate today for this Court to insert itself into the regulatory mix by substituting the rule of reasonable use for the current rule of capture. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment.
The people of Texas have given the Legislature, in article XVI, section 59 of the Texas Constitution, not only the power but the duty to “pass all such laws as may be appropriate” for the conservation, development, and preservation of the State's natural resources, including its groundwater.1 The Legislature has concluded that local “[g]roundwater conservation districts ․ are the state's preferred method of groundwater management.” 2 Actually, such districts are not just the preferred method of groundwater management, they are the only method presently available. Yet in the fifty years since the Legislature first authorized the creation of groundwater conservation districts,3 the record in this case shows that only some forty-two such districts have been created, covering a small fraction of the State. Not much groundwater management is going on.
Neither remains valid. The extensive regulation of oil and gas production proves that effective regulation of migrant substances far below the surface is not only possible but necessary and effective. In the past several decades it has become clear, if it was not before, that it is not regulation that threatens progress, but the lack of it.
(c) the withdrawal of the ground water has a direct and substantial effect upon a watercourse or lake and unreasonably causes harm to a person entitled to the use of its water.
While neither section 858 nor any other common law rule of water regulation is preferable to almost any effective legislative solution, absent such a solution, section 858 is preferable to the rule of capture.
Nevertheless, I am persuaded for the time being that the extensive statutory changes in 1997, together with the increasing demands on the State's water supply, may result before long in a fair, effective, and comprehensive regulation of water use that will make the rule of capture obsolete. I agree with the Court that it would be inappropriate to disrupt the processes created and encouraged by the 1997 legislation before they have had a chance to work. I concur in the view that, for now-but I think only for now-East should not be overruled.
2. See tex.R.App. P. 55.2(i).
3. 973 S.W.2d at 329-30.
4. 98 Tex. 146, 81 S.W. 279 (1904).
5. See id. at 280; see also Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 625-26 (Tex.1996); Friendswood Dev. Co. v. Smith-Southwest Indus., Inc., 576 S.W.2d 21, 25 (Tex.1978); City of Corpus Christi v. City of Pleasanton, 154 Tex. 289, 276 S.W.2d 798, 800 (1955).
6. 152 Eng. Rep. 1223, 1235 (Ex. Ch. 1843), quoted in East, 81 S.W. at 280.
7. See Bassett v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 43 N.H. 569, 577 (1862); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858 (1979).
8. East, 81 S.W. at 281 (quoting Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294, 311 (Ohio 1861)).
9. Id. (quoting Frazier, 12 Ohio St. at 311).
10. See id. at 282.
11. See Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 626.
12. tex. Const. art XVI, § 59(a).
13. See City of Corpus Christi, 276 S.W.2d at 805-06 (Wilson, J., dissenting).
14. See id. at 801.
15. Id. at 801 (citations omitted).
16. Id. at 801-02 (citing Texas Co. v. Burkett, 117 Tex. 16, 296 S.W. 273, 278 (1927)).
17. City of Corpus Christi, 276 S.W.2d at 800 (quoting tex. Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 7602 (Vernon 1925) (repealed)).
19. See id. at 800, 803.
26. Act of May 30, 1993, 73 d Leg., R.S., ch. 626, §§ 1.08, 1.14, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 2350, 2356, 2360, amended by Act of May 29, 1995, 74 th Leg., R.S., ch. 261, 1995 Tex. Gen. Law 2505.
27. Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 623-24 (quoting Act of May 30, 1993, 73 d Leg., R.S., ch. 626, § 1.06, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 2350, 2355-56, amended by Act of May 29, 1995, 74 th Leg., R.S., ch. 261, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2505).
29. Id. at 626; see also Friendswood, 576 S.W.2d at 30; City of Corpus Christi, 276 S.W.2d at 803.
30. East, 81 S.W. at 280 (quoting Frazier, 12 Ohio St. at 311) (emphasis added).
31. See Senate Bill 1, Act of June 1, 1997, 75 th Leg., R.S., ch. 1010, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 3610.
32. Senator J.E. “Buster” Brown, Senate Bill 1: We've Never Changed Texas Water Law this Way Before, 28 st. B. Tex. Envtl. L.J.. 152, 153 (1998).
33. tex. Water Code § 36.0015.
34. See Act of May 19, 1949, 51 st Leg., R.S., ch. 306, 1949 Tex. Gen. Laws 559.
35. See Act of May 24, 1955, 54 th Leg., R.S. ch. 496, §§ 1-8, 1955 Tex. Gen. Laws 1239, 1239-42; Act of May 11, 1961, 57 th Leg., R.S. ch. 493, 1961 Tex. Gen. Laws 1095; Act of May 24, 1973, 63 rd Leg., R.S., ch. 598, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1641; Act of May 8, 1985, 69 th Leg., R.S., ch. 133, §§ 5.01, 6.04, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 617, 641-54; Act of May 29, 1989, 71 st Leg., R.S., ch. 936, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3981; Act of May 27, 1991, 72 d Leg., R.S., ch. 701, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 2506.
36. See tex. Water Code § 36.113.
37. See id., § 36.122.
38. See id., § 35.008.
39. See id., § 35.018.
40. See id., §§ 11.134, 11.151, 16.053, 36.1071-.1073.
41. Amici generally in favor of retention of the rule of capture include the City of Houston, Texas Council of Forest Products Manufacturers, Texas Water Conservation Association, Texas Groundwater Association, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, Edwards Aquifer Authority, High Plains Underground Water Conservation District, North Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District, Sandy Land Underground Water Conservation District, Mesa Underground Water Conservation District, South Plains Underground Water Conservation District, North Plains Ground Water Conservation District No. 2, American Land Foundation, Riverside and Landowners Protection Coalition, Texas Justice Foundation, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Association of Nurserymen, Inc., and Texas Farm Bureau. Amici generally in favor of abandonment of the rule of capture include Aqua Water Supply Corporation, Environmental Defense Fund, and National Spring Water Association.
42. See tex. Water Code § 36.051; 36.059; 36.063-65.
43. Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 317 (Tex.1979).
1. tex. Const. art. XVI, § 59(a) (“[T]he preservation and conservation of all such natural resources of the State are each and all hereby declared public rights and duties; and the Legislature shall pass all such laws as may be appropriate thereto.”).
2. tex. Water Code § 36.0015.
3. Act of May 23, 1949, 51st Leg., R.S., ch. 306, 1949 Tex. Gen. Laws 559.
4. See John B. Ashworth & Janie Hopkins, Aquifers of Texas, texas Water Dev. Bd. Report 345 , at 1 (Nov.1995).
6. tex. Sen. Interim Comm. on Environmental Affairs, Recommendations of the Committee, 62nd Leg., 15, 18 (1973) (“Water Resources”).
7. Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1010, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 3610.
8. See Martin Hubert, Senate Bill 1, the First Big and Bold Step Toward Meeting Texas's Future Water Needs, 30 tex. Tech L.Rev. 53, 55-56 (1999).
9. See Senator J.E. “Buster” Brown, Senate Bill 1: We've Never Changed Texas Water Law This Way Before, 28 st. B. Tex. Envtl. L.J.. 152, 157 (1998).
10. Friendswood Dev. Co. v. Smith-Southwest Indus., Inc., 576 S.W.2d 21, 25-30 (Tex.1978).
11. 98 Tex. 146, 81 S.W. 279 (1904).
12. Id. at 280 (citing Acton v. Blundell, 152 Eng. Rep. 1223 (Ex. Ch. 1843), and Bassett v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 43 N.H. 569 (1862)).
13. Robert Emmet Clark, Ground Water Legislation in the Light of Experience in the Western States, 22 mont. L.Rev. 42, 50 (1960).
14. Roger Tyler, Underground Water Regulation in Texas, 39 tex. B.J. 532, 535 (1976); Richard S. Harnsberger, Nebraska Ground Water Problems, 42 neb. L.R. 721, 727 (1963) (“Almost all of the contiguous seventeen Western states originally accepted the English rule by dictum or decision, but today only Texas appears to follow it.”).
15. East, 81 S.W. at 281 (quoting Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294, 311 (1861)).
16. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 harv. L.Rev. . 457, 469 (1897).
17. See, e.g., Robert A. McCleskey, Comment, Maybe Oil and Water Should Mix-At Least in Texas Law: An Analysis of Current Problems with Texas Ground Water Law and How Established Oil and Gas Law Could Provide Appropriate Solutions, 1 tex. Wesleyan L.Rev. 207 (1994); Lana Shannon Shadwick, Note, Obsolescence, Environmental Endangerment and Possible Federal Intervention Compel Reformation of Texas Groundwater Law, 32 so. Tex. L.Rev. . 641 (1991); Karen H. Norris, Comment, The Stagnation of Texas Ground Water Law: A Political v. Environmental Stalemate, 22 st. Mary's L.J. 493 (1990); Corwin W. Johnson, The Continuing Voids in Texas Groundwater Law: Are Concepts and Terminology to Blame?, 17 St. Mary's L.J. 1281 (1986).
18. See Joe R. Greenhill & Thomas Gibbs Gee, Ownership of Ground Water in Texas; The East Case Reconsidered, 33 tex. L.Rev. 620, 629-630 (1955).
19. 154 Tex. 289, 276 S.W.2d 798 (1955).
20. Id. at 805 (Wilson, J., dissenting).
21. restatement (Second) of Torts § 858 (1979).
Justice ENOCH delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Justice HECHT filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice O'NEILL joined.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 858
 v. 
 § 59
 v. 
 art. 7602
 § 1
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 35
 § 35
 § 36
 v. 
 § 59
 § 36
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 858