Hoover v. Crane
362 Mich. 36, 106 N.W.2d 563, 1960 Mich. LEXIS 278 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A riparian owner's use of water is not unreasonable, and thus not actionable by other riparian owners, if it is a legitimate use that does not unduly interfere with the rights of the other owners, considering all circumstances such as the nature of the uses, the extent of the harm, and the benefits derived.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are cottage and resort owners on Hutchins Lake, a 350-acre spring-fed lake.
- Defendant is a fruit farmer who owns a 180-acre farm, including a 50-acre pear orchard, that abuts Hutchins Lake.
- The summer of 1958 was exceedingly dry, causing the lake's level to fall to the lowest point in memory.
- During the drought, the defendant began pumping water from the lake through a 5-inch pipe to irrigate his pear orchard.
- The lake level subsequently fell an additional 6 to 8 inches, causing the water line to recede 50 to 60 feet.
- Plaintiffs experienced severe difficulties with boating and swimming due to the low water level.
- Defendant contended his water usage was minimal, while plaintiffs argued it was the primary cause of the significant drop in the lake's level.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff cottage and resort owners filed a suit against the defendant farmer in a Michigan circuit court (the trial court of first instance), seeking to stop his irrigation.
- The chancellor (the trial court judge) ruled that the defendant had a right to a reasonable use of the lake water.
- The chancellor entered a decree permitting the defendant to use a metered amount of water equivalent to 1/4 inch of the lake's surface when the lake's outlet ceased to flow.
- The plaintiffs, unsatisfied with the decree, appealed the decision to the Michigan Supreme 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 riparian owner's use of lake water for agricultural irrigation, which contributes to a lower lake level during a dry season, constitute an unreasonable use when it interferes with the recreational uses of other riparian owners?
Opinions:
Majority - Edwards, J.
No, the agricultural use of the water was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Michigan law follows the reasonable-use rule, which requires balancing the conflicting rights of riparian owners. This rule dictates that a diminution in water quantity is not actionable unless the use causing it is unreasonable in light of all circumstances. Factors to consider include the purpose of the use, its extent, the nature of the water source, the injury to one party, and the benefit to the other. Here, both resort use and agricultural use are legitimate purposes. The evidence supported the trial court's finding that the drought was the primary cause of the low water level, not the defendant's irrigation. Therefore, the trial court's decree, which allowed the defendant a limited and metered amount of water for irrigation while keeping the case open for future review, was an equitable and reasonable resolution that protected the competing interests.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the 'reasonable use' doctrine in balancing competing riparian rights, particularly between recreational and consumptive agricultural uses. The decision establishes that a partial, incidental harm to one riparian owner does not automatically render another's use unreasonable, especially when natural conditions are a major contributing factor. By upholding a judicially-managed compromise (metered usage) rather than an outright injunction, the court sets a precedent for flexible, equitable remedies in water rights disputes. This approach avoids creating a hierarchy of uses and instead favors a fact-specific balancing test that allows for the coexistence of different, legitimate water uses.
