Friendswood Development Co. v. Smith-Southwest Industries, Inc.
576 S.W.2d 21 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is not liable for subsidence of another's land caused by the lawful, non-negligent withdrawal of percolating groundwater, but liability for future subsidence will attach if the withdrawal is negligent, willfully wasteful, or malicious and proximately causes the damage.
Facts:
- Smith-Southwest Industries and other plaintiffs were owners of land located along the shores of Galveston Bay and Clear Lake in Harris County, Texas.
- Friendswood Development Company and its parent, Exxon Corporation, owned nearby land in the same area.
- Between 1964 and 1971, Friendswood drilled wells on its property and began withdrawing vast quantities of underground water, which it sold to industrial users.
- Prior to drilling, Friendswood had received engineering reports indicating that such withdrawals would result in a certain amount of land subsidence in the area.
- The plaintiffs' lands experienced severe subsidence, causing them to sink in elevation relative to mean sea level.
- This subsidence resulted in the erosion and flooding of the plaintiffs' properties and caused damage to their residences, businesses, and other improvements.
- The wider Harris and Galveston County region had a pre-existing and widespread problem with land subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawals from thousands of wells operated by many different parties.
Procedural Posture:
- Smith-Southwest Industries sued Friendswood Development Company and Exxon Corporation in a Texas district court (trial court).
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' case.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that the plaintiffs had stated a valid cause of action.
- Friendswood Development Company and Exxon appealed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Texas (the state's highest court).
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 a landowner's withdrawal of percolating groundwater from wells on their own property, which causes subsidence on adjacent property, give rise to liability for damages under theories of negligence or nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Daniel
No. Under the established common law rule of absolute ownership, a landowner is not liable for damages to a neighbor's property, such as subsidence, caused by the withdrawal of percolating groundwater, absent willful waste or malicious injury. Texas adopted this 'English rule' in Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. East, which grants landowners an absolute right to capture the water beneath their land without regard to the effect on neighboring wells or land. This rule became a settled principle of property law upon which landowners have relied. To retroactively impose liability for nuisance or negligence would be unjust under the doctrine of stare decisis. However, the court declares a new prospective rule: for future subsidence caused by withdrawals after this opinion becomes final, a landowner will be liable if their manner of withdrawal is negligent, willfully wasteful, or malicious, and such conduct is a proximate cause of the subsidence.
Dissenting - Justice Pope
Yes. The majority incorrectly frames this as a case about the ownership of ground water when it is actually about the absolute right to subjacent support for one's land. The plaintiffs do not claim rights to the water; they claim a right not to have their land destroyed. The right to capture groundwater should not be interpreted as a right to destroy a neighbor's property. The court should have analogized to the law of lateral support, where liability is imposed for causing a neighbor's land to collapse. The dissent argues that the plaintiffs should be able to proceed on theories of negligence and nuisance, and that it is unjust to recognize a valid cause of action but deny it to the very litigants who brought the issue before the court by applying the new rule only prospectively.
Analysis:
This landmark decision reaffirms the traditional 'rule of capture' for percolating groundwater for past conduct, underscoring the strong influence of stare decisis in Texas property law. However, by prospectively creating a cause of action for negligence, the court fundamentally altered this long-standing doctrine. The case signals a judicial recognition that absolute property rights must yield to principles of tort liability when they cause foreseeable harm, reflecting a shift towards a more modern and balanced approach to resource management. This dual ruling created a clear temporal dividing line, protecting past reliance interests while establishing a new standard of care for all future groundwater withdrawals to prevent subsidence.
Unlock the full brief for Friendswood Development Co. v. Smith-Southwest Industries, Inc.