Opinion ID: 2047301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Adoption of Restatement for Disputes Between Surface Water Users and Ground Water Users

Text: Having reviewed the common-law rules, we now consider whether we will recognize a common-law claim for interference with surface water by the user of hydrologically connected ground water. Initially, we reject a rule that would bar a surface water appropriator from recovering in all situations. Such a rule would ignore the hydrological fact that a ground water user's actions may have significant, negative consequences for surface water appropriators. Instead, the common law should acknowledge and attempt to balance the competing equities of ground water users and surface water appropriators; the Restatement approach best accomplishes this. The Restatement recognizes that ground water and surface water are interconnected and that in determining the rights and liabilities of competing users, the fact finder needs broad discretion. Thus, when applying the Restatement, the fact finder has flexibility to consider many factors such as those listed in § 850A, along with other factors that could affect a determination of reasonable use. Adoption of the Restatement is the modern trend. See, Cline v. American Aggregates, 15 Ohio St.3d 384, 474 N.E.2d 324 1984); State v. Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc., 63 Wis.2d 278, 217 N.W.2d 339 (1974); Maerz v. U S Steel Corp., 116 Mich.App. 710, 323 N.W.2d 524 (1982). Further, commentators have recommended the adoption of the Restatement to both this court and the Legislature. See Richard S. Harnsberger et al., Groundwater: From Windmills to Comprehensive Public Management, 52 Neb. L.Rev. 179 (1973). Accordingly, we adopt the Restatement to govern conflicts between users of hydrologically connected surface water and ground water. Specifically, we hold: A proprietor of land or his [or her] 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 of another, unless ... 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. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858(1)(c) at 258 (1979). Whether a ground water user has unreasonably caused harm to a surface water user is decided on a case-by-case basis. In making the reasonableness determination, the Restatement, supra, § 850A, provides a valuable guide, but we emphasize that the test is flexible and that a trial court should consider any factors it deems relevant. We digress momentarily to offer a word of caution. Although the issue of available remedies is not yet before us, courts should be cautious when considering remedies for interference with surface water. For example, because the recharge of a stream that has dried up because of well pumping could take years, an injunction against pumping might only serve to deprive everyone in a water basin. Such a remedy would be unreasonable and inequitable. Likewise, a court can consider a surface water appropriator's ability to obtain an exception to stays on drilling new wells, or any additional programs that might provide relief.