Harris v. Brooks
283 S.W.2d 129 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right of a riparian owner to use the water from a non-navigable lake is limited to what is reasonable in relation to the rights of other riparian owners. When one lawful use of water unreasonably harms or destroys another lawful use, the interfering use must be enjoined.
Facts:
- Horseshoe Lake is a privately owned, non-navigable lake surrounded by land owned by several different parties.
- John Brooks and John Brooks, Jr. leased a large tract of land adjacent to the lake and had been using water from the lake to irrigate their rice crops intermittently for many years.
- In March 1954, Theo Mashburn leased a campsite on the lake from other riparian landowners, including Ed Harris, and invested approximately $8,000 to establish a commercial boating and fishing business.
- Mashburn's business operated successfully from April until early July 1954.
- Starting on May 25, 1954, the Brooks began pumping water from the lake to irrigate approximately 190 acres of rice.
- By July 1, the water level of the lake had dropped significantly, causing Mashburn's boat rentals to cease and fishing to decline, thereby destroying his business.
- The water receded so far from the bank that Mashburn's boats could no longer be docked or launched for rental.
- The Brooks continued pumping until August 20, when they stopped after it was discovered that fish life in the lake was being endangered.
Procedural Posture:
- Theo Mashburn and his lessors, Harris et al., filed a complaint in chancery court (a court of equity) seeking an injunction to stop John Brooks and John Brooks, Jr. from pumping water from Horseshoe Lake.
- After a hearing, the Chancellor (trial judge) denied the request for an injunction.
- Mashburn and the other landowners (appellants) appealed the Chancellor's decision to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
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 riparian owner's use of water from a non-navigable lake for irrigation constitute an unreasonable use that may be enjoined when it lowers the water level to a point that it destroys or substantially impairs another riparian owner's lawful use of the lake for fishing and recreational boating?
Opinions:
Majority - Paul Ward, Associate Justice.
Yes. A riparian owner's use of water for irrigation becomes unreasonable and may be enjoined when it lowers the water level to a degree that it destroys or unreasonably interferes with another riparian owner's lawful use of the lake. In this case, the court formally adopts the reasonable use theory of riparian rights, moving away from the stricter natural flow theory. Under the reasonable use theory, all lawful uses of water, such as for irrigation and recreation, are considered equal and correlative. A use is unreasonable when it causes substantial harm to another lawful use, weighing the utility of the interfering use against the gravity of the harm. The court found that the Brooks's irrigation pumping unreasonably interfered with Mashburn's recreational business once the water level fell below 189.67 feet above sea level. Therefore, the Brooks's pumping should be enjoined when the lake reaches that level, not because it is the 'normal' level, but because it is the point at which their use causes unreasonable harm to other riparian owners.
Analysis:
This landmark decision formally established the 'reasonable use' doctrine as the governing law for riparian rights in Arkansas, replacing the more restrictive 'natural flow' theory. This shift promotes the beneficial and economic use of water resources, particularly for agriculture, by allowing for alterations in a waterbody's natural state so long as the use is not unreasonable. The case sets a precedent for balancing the competing interests of riparian owners, requiring a fact-intensive inquiry into the circumstances of each case. Future disputes over water use will be resolved by weighing the social utility of one use against the gravity of the harm it causes to another, rather than adhering to a rigid rule of maintaining a 'normal' water level.
Unlock the full brief for Harris v. Brooks