Opinion ID: 2047301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Restatement

Text: The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858 (1979) essentially adopts a correlative rights rule that allows for a balancing of many factors to determine reasonableness. Although the rule is initially stated in terms of reasonable use similar to the American rule, it adds exceptions that draw on principles of correlative rights. The Restatement rule finds its support in principles of nuisance law and has been suggested as the basic framework for well interference cases. See Richard S. Harnsberger & Norman W. Thorson, Nebraska Water Law & Administration § 5.27 (Butterworth Legal Publishers 1984). The Restatement, § 858 at 258, states in part as follows: (1) A proprietor of land or his grantee who withdraws ground water from the land and uses it for a beneficial purpose is not subject to liability for interference with the use of water by another, unless (a) the withdrawal of ground water unreasonably causes harm to a proprietor of neighboring land through lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure, (b) the withdrawal of ground water exceeds the proprietor's reasonable share of the annual supply or total store of ground water, or (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. Although § 858 is under chapter 41, topic 4, entitled Interference With the Use of Water, id. at 253, a note on that topic's scope shows that it is intended to apply to water that is hydrologically connected to ground water. The note states in part: This Topic covers the rights and liabilities of possessors of land and others withdrawing ground water. It also states the rules governing the rights and liabilities of persons using water where ground water is interconnected with the water of watercourses and lakes. Id. Several courts have adopted the Restatement approach. Cline v. American Aggregates, 15 Ohio St.3d 384, 474 N.E.2d 324 (1984); State v. Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc., supra ; Maerz v. U S Steel Corp., 116 Mich.App. 710, 323 N.W.2d 524 (1982). In addition, the Restatement keeps older definitions of ground water and surface water, but abandons any common-law distinctions between underground watercourses and percolating water. Ground water is defined as water that naturally lies or flows under the surface of the earth. Restatement, supra, § 845 at 198. See, also, Maddocks v. Giles, 728 A.2d 150 (Me.1999). Comment b. of the Restatement, supra, recognizes that ground water may be connected to other forms of water. The comment states: Most ground water is moving in the hydrologic cycle. It originates from infiltration of precipitation and inflow of streams; it discharges into springs, streams, lakes and oceans. Some ground water is sidetracked from the cycle in closed basins where geologic formations isolate it from recharge or discharge. Id. at 199. Although the Restatement rule is derived from principles of reasonable use, the rule differs from the American rule because it balances the equities and hardships between competing users. Maddocks v. Giles, supra . The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858, comment b. at 259 (1979), notes in part: The general rule is phrased in terms of nonliability in order to carry forward the policy of encouraging ground water use by permitting more or less unrestricted development of the resource by those who have access to it. The policy and the rule are justified by the fact that since most ground water basins are very large and contain vast quantities of water, it is usually impossible for a single water user to capture the entire supply and leave no water for others. Comment c. at 259-60 provides: Exceptions to the general rule are stated in Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Subsection (1). They incorporate all grounds of liability for use of ground water recognized by the common law but remove some of the restrictions contained in those rules of liability. The majority American rule of reasonable use ... was phrased in terms of the overlying landowner's right to capture ground water, limited by restrictions on the place of use of the water. In operation this protected small wells for domestic and agricultural uses from the harmful effects of large wells for municipal and industrial supply. The first exception to nonliability, contained in Clause (1)(a), continues this protection but follows a modern tendency to extend similar protection to cases of harm done by unreasonably large withdrawals for operations conducted on overlying lands. The second exception, Clause (1)(b), imposes liability upon a landowner who withdraws more than his reasonable share of the common supply. This has always been a possible outcome of a controversy concerning ground water if the source could be classified as an underground stream or if the rule of correlative rights were applied. The concept of underground streams was unscientific and its application could be quite arbitrary and the applicability of the rule of correlative rights was in doubt in many states. This exception merges the two rules and makes it possible to apportion shares of the water in the source to the owners of overlying land whenever total withdrawals reach such magnitude that it is necessary to protect the share of an individual landowner from appropriation by others. The last exception, Clause (1)(c), restates the conditions for recognizing that ground water and surface water are often closely interrelated and should be treated as a single source. In the past this took many forms. Withdrawals of ground water have been called unreasonable when they reduced the flow of springs. A variant of the underground stream concept has enabled the courts to regulate some ground water as the underground segment of a surface stream. The part of an aquifer in contact with the bed and banks of a stream has been called the underflow of the stream and treated as part of it. This Section substitutes a pragmatic test for determining the interconnection instead of employing these doubtful and unscientific categorizations. Thus, under the Restatement, reasonableness of use is determined on a case-by-case basis and many factors can be considered; the test is flexible. The test for reasonableness is provided in the Restatement: The determination of the reasonableness of a use of water depends upon a consideration of the interests of the riparian proprietor making the use, of any riparian proprietor harmed by it and of society as a whole. Factors that affect the determination include the following: (a) The purpose of the use, (b) the suitability of the use to the watercourse or lake, (c) the economic value of the use, (d) the social value of the use, (e) the extent and amount of harm it causes, (f) the practicality of avoiding the harm by adjusting the use or method of use of one proprietor or the other, (g) the practicality of adjusting the quantity of water used by each proprietor, (h) the protection of existing values of water uses, land, investments and enterprises, and (i) the justice of requiring the user causing harm to bear the loss. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 850A at 220 (1979).