Water Rights

Constructed pond on mountainous terrain is an abnormally dangerous condition that renders owner strictly liable for damage caused when it ruptured after a storm and flooded the downhill property

/ Easements, Nuisance, Water Rights

The Montana Supreme Court held in Covey v. Brishka, 2019 MT 164, 445 P.3d 785 (Mont. 2019), that it was so obviously unreasonably dangerous to construct a 4.5 million-gallon constructed pond on a mountainous property that the owner was strictly liable for an “abnormally dangerous condition” when a storm caused a cascade of boulders and water onto the property lower down the hill.

Civil law or natural flow rule interpreted to allow artificial drainage of subsurface water

/ Nuisance, Water Rights

While the “free use” rule generally allows an owner to expel surface and subsurface water without liability, the civil law or “natural flow’ rule imposes liability on an owner who artificially captures and expels such waters, especially if done in a direction different from the watercourse or the natural direction of water flow. However, interpreting a state statute codifying the civil law rule, (S.D. Codified Laws §46A-10A-70, the South Dakota Supreme Court allowed an owner to expel subsurface waters through a drainage system as long as the water followed the natural direction of drainage and the water discharged into any established or natural watercourse. In re Drainage Permit 11-81, 922 N.W.2d 263 (S.D. 2019).

Texas beachfront property rights after hurricanes

/ Easements, Servitudes, Takings, Trespass, Water Rights

In general, when property borders change because of gradual accretion or erosion along rivers or oceans, then owners gain or lose land because of those changes.  If land is gradually added to an owner’s land by gradual build-up of sand or silt, then the owner’s property increases to that extent; the reverse is also true. But if the border changes suddenly (“avulsion”) then the borders do not change. The courts have generally applied these principles to beachfront property to determine the border between the private property rights of beachfront owners and the land owned by the public accessible by anyone. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), challenged a common law rule giving the public access to a new sand area on the beach created by government landfill. While refusing to decide whether a judicial common law ruling could be a taking, the Court …

Texas beachfront property rights after hurricanes Read More »

Regulatory taking of water rights

/ Environmental Law, Takings, Water Rights

In a prior post, I explained the holding of a Texas Supreme Court opinion that held that regulation of water rights might constitute a regulatory taking. The text of that post is at the end of this one. A subsequent case involving similar facts actually held that limits on withdrawal of groundwater designed to preserve water for drinking purposes actually took the property rights of water rights owners who had received permits to use the water to irrigate their pecan crops. That case is Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Bragg, 421 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Ct. App. 2013) and it meant that the regulation in question could not be enforced without just compensation. It was expected that the Texas Supreme Court would hear that case on appeal to affirm or overrule its holding but surprisingly, the court has denied appellate review. Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Bragg, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 400 (Tex. 2015). That either suggests approval …

Regulatory taking of water rights Read More »

State did not dispossess owners and thus did not “take’ lands in violation of the constitution merely by asserting ownership

/ Takings, Title Issues, Trespass, Water Rights

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed its ruling that the border between state-owned submerged lands and private lands along the coast is the “mean higher high tide line” or the mean location of the high tide line over the regular tidal cycle of 18.6 years. Porretto v. Tex. Gen. Land Office, 2014 WL 2994436 (Tex. 2014). In various ways, agents of the state of Texas has acted so as to claim public rights in property that is on the “private” or landward side of the line. The Texas General Land Office (GLO) claimed that it owns lands that the Texas Supreme Court says are privately owned; that office also requested that tax records be changed to indicate state ownership of those lands. These statements have made it harder for private owners to sell those lands. However, since the GLO ended its bid to change the tax rolls to claim public ownership of those lands …

State did not dispossess owners and thus did not “take’ lands in violation of the constitution merely by asserting ownership Read More »

Court holds that beach rights can be lost through erosion

/ Easements, Title Issues, Trespass, Water Rights

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reaffirmed the old rule that property rights can be expanded by slow accretion or diminished through slow erosion when property is located on a stream or the ocean. In White v. Hartigan, 982 N.E.2d 1115 (Mass. 2013), beachfront owners claimed a right to use the beach behind their neighbors house because their deed had given them rights to the beach in 1841. The court disagreed, noting that changing boundaries had placed the plaintiffs’ beach under water and that they had no right to “moveable” boundaries ensuring access to the beach behind their neighbor’s house.

Groundwater ownership in Texas

/ Environmental Law, Takings, Water Rights

The Texas Supreme Court has issued a somewhat confusing opinion holding that landowners own the groundwater beneath the surface of their land. In Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Day, No. 08-0964 (Feb.24, 2012), the Texas Supreme Court held that a water regulation commission may have taken an owner’s groundwater rights without just compensation under the Penn Central test when it limited an owner’s groundwater rights to the amounts of water he had historically taken from the land. The court found a state law that defined the amount of groundwater one can withdraw based on historical uses to be a potential taking of property because it believed an owner should not lose the right to withdraw vested rights in groundwater just because the landowner had failed to exercise his right to withdraw it in the past. The court did not overturn the state’s free use or absolute ownership rule for groundwater that allows owners to …

Groundwater ownership in Texas Read More »

Scroll to Top