Cline v. American Aggregates Corp.
15 Ohio St.3d 384 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is subject to liability for interference with another's use of groundwater if the withdrawal unreasonably causes harm to a neighboring proprietor, exceeds a reasonable share of the annual supply, or has a direct and substantial effect on a watercourse. This holding overrules the absolute ownership doctrine for percolating groundwater.
Facts:
- Multiple landowners (appellants) resided in an area and relied on wells for their water supply.
- American Aggregates Corp. (appellee), a neighboring entity, began operating a limestone quarry.
- In the course of its quarrying operation, American Aggregates Corp. pumped a significant amount of groundwater out of the ground, a process known as dewatering.
- The dewatering activities by American Aggregates Corp. caused the water table in the area to drop significantly.
- As a direct result of the lowered water table, the wells of the neighboring landowners went dry, depriving them of water.
Procedural Posture:
- The landowners sued American Aggregates Corp. in a state trial court, seeking damages and an injunction for the loss of their well water.
- Relying on the absolute ownership rule from Frazier v. Brown, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of American Aggregates Corp.
- The landowners (appellants) appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that it was bound by the precedent of Frazier v. Brown.
- The landowners (appellants) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law absolute ownership rule, which allows a landowner to withdraw unlimited amounts of percolating groundwater without liability to neighboring landowners, remain the controlling law in Ohio?
Opinions:
Majority - J. P. Celebrezze, J.
No. The absolute ownership rule for percolating groundwater, established in Frazier v. Brown, is overruled and replaced by the reasonable use doctrine found in Section 858 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The court reasoned that the original justifications for the absolute ownership rule—that groundwater movements were 'secret, occult and concealed'—are no longer valid due to modern scientific advancements in hydrology. The old rule was criticized as harsh, unjust, and promoting a 'might is the only protection' standard where powerful users could drain the water from smaller neighbors with impunity. The Restatement's reasonable use standard is more equitable and better suited to resolve modern groundwater conflicts by protecting landowners' property rights while preventing unreasonable harm to others.
Concurring - Holmes, J.
No. While previously believing the legislature should address this issue, the justice concurs in adopting the Restatement's reasonable use doctrine due to legislative inaction. This new standard justly meets the changing needs of water users and provides flexibility, as what constitutes a 'reasonable use' can be re-evaluated as circumstances change. The rule protects both rural and commercial users from unreasonable harm, encourages economic efficiency, and aligns the law with modern hydrologic science, which can now establish cause-and-effect relationships for groundwater depletion. This allows for fair adjudication of liability, which was not possible when the original absolute ownership rule was adopted.
Analysis:
This decision marks a fundamental shift in Ohio's water law, abandoning a 123-year-old precedent of absolute ownership for a modern, tort-based liability rule of reasonable use. By adopting the Restatement standard, the court aligns Ohio with a growing number of jurisdictions that balance the rights of landowners to use their property with the need to protect shared natural resources. The case establishes that landowners do not have an unlimited right to groundwater and can be held liable for harm caused to neighbors, significantly strengthening the legal position of smaller property owners against large-scale industrial or commercial water users. Future litigation will focus on defining what constitutes an 'unreasonable' withdrawal of groundwater under various circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Cline v. American Aggregates Corp.