Opinion ID: 1410520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: COMMON LAW v. CIVIL LAW

Text: The issue of who has control over the use of surface waters above a lake bed owned by two or more adjoining land owners is one of first impression for this Court. The appellant maintains that the lower court erred in adopting the view that Grace is only entitled to use that portion of Shook's Run Lake which overlies the land owned by Grace. The appellee, on the other hand, argues that the trial court was correct in concluding that the appellees have the exclusive right to use the surface water over their land. A split of authority exists among the jurisdictions which have dealt with this issue. The majority of courts have followed the common-law rule. Under the common-law rule, the owner of a portion of the land underlying surface waters has the exclusive right to control the water above that property. Beacham v. Lake Zurich Property Owners Ass'n, 123 Ill.2d 227, 122 Ill.Dec. 14, 16, 526 N.E.2d 154, 156 (1988). Consequently, the owner of a portion of a lake bed has the right to exclude others, including any other owners of the lake bed, from using his property. Beacham, 122 Ill.Dec. at 16-17, 526 N.E.2d at 156-57 (citing Medlock v. Galbreath, 208 Ark. 681, 187 S.W.2d 545 (1945); Lanier v. Ocean Pond Fishing Club, Inc., 253 Ga. 549, 322 S.E.2d 494 (1984); Sanders v. De Rose, 207 Ind. 90, 191 N.E. 331 (1934); Baker v. Normanoch Ass'n, Inc., 25 N.J. 407, 136 A.2d 645 (1957); Commonwealth Water Co. v. Brunner, 175 A.D. 153, 161 N.Y.S. 794 (1916); Smoulter v. Boyd, 209 Pa. 146, 58 A. 144 (1904); Taylor Fishing Club v. Hammett, 88 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Civ.App. 1935); Wickouski v. Swift, 203 Va. 467, 124 S.E.2d 892 (1962)). Other jurisdictions have adopted a civil-law rule. Utilizing this rule, the owner of part of the land underlying a lake has the right to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the entire lake. Beacham, 122 Ill.Dec. at 17, 526 N.E.2d at 157 (citing Duval v. Thomas, 114 So.2d 791 (Fla.1959); Beach v. Hayner, 207 Mich. 93, 173 N.W. 487 (1919); Johnson v. Seifert, 257 Minn. 159, 100 N.W.2d 689 (1960); Snively v. Jaber, 48 Wash.2d 815, 296 P.2d 1015 (1956)). The states which have adopted the civil-law rule have been concerned with promoting the recreational use and enjoyment of lakes, have an extensive number of lakes with recreational value, or have been concerned with attempts to establish and obey definite property lines where several adjoining owners are involved. See Beacham, 122 Ill.Dec. at 17, 526 N.E.2d at 157; Johnson, 100 N.W.2d at 696; Duval, 114 So.2d at 795. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in the Wickouski case, had to determine a case factually analogous to the present one. In that case, the Swifts and Wickouskis were co-owners of a portion of a pond. The Swifts sought to keep the Wickouskis from boating, trapping and fishing on their portion of the land and from inviting others to use their part of the pond. 124 S.E.2d at 892. In Wickouski, the pond at issue was a nonnavigable body of water created by a dam. Further, the title to and boundaries of the surface and submerged property were not in dispute. Finally, the majority of the pond and the land underneath it, or approximately 28 acres, was owned in fee simple absolute by the Swifts, with the Wickouskis owning approximately 1.3 acres of land covered by the pond. Id. at 893. The court, following the common-law rule, held that the complainants [Swifts] have exclusive control and use of the waters above their portion of the bed of the pond, and ... they have the right to erect a fence on their boundary line across the pond to prohibit others from boating, fishing and trapping on their property. Id. at 895. Similarly, the facts of this case quite clearly demonstrate that the appellees own the majority of the land beneath Shook's Run Lake. Moreover, a clear harm will be inflicted upon the appellees' use and enjoyment of their property if the appellant is permitted to have control over the entire lake based upon a mere 2% ownership of the lake. This harm arises from the appellant's disproportionate amount of potential users [3] of the lake in relation to the appellant's ownership. Finally, there is nothing in the record which would indicate that when the appellees granted the easement which allowed for the construction of the dam, that the lake was going to bring a substantial number of recreational users onto their land. Based upon these facts, we also choose to follow the common-law rule in holding that where ownership of the land underlying a man-made lake is clear and distinct, the owner of a portion of the lake bed has the exclusive control and use of the water above the portion of the lake bed which he owns. Further, the owner has a right to exclude others, including other adjoining owners of the lake bed, by erecting a fence or other barrier to prohibit others from utilizing the water which overlies his property. Since the common-law rule was applied in issuing the injunction against the appellant, we find no error was committed by the trial court.