Katz v. Walkinshaw
70 P. 663, 141 Cal. 116 (1903)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's right to percolating groundwater is not absolute but is limited to a reasonable and beneficial use on the overlying land, correlative with the rights of other landowners overlying the same water source. Appropriators who take water for use on distant lands may only take surplus water not needed by overlying landowners.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were landowners who had wells on their respective properties from which water flowed to the surface.
- Plaintiffs used this water for essential domestic and irrigation purposes on their lands.
- Defendant, a landowner in the same vicinity, constructed new wells and excavations on his property.
- Defendant began extracting large quantities of percolating groundwater through his wells.
- Defendant's actions drew off the water supplying Plaintiffs' wells, causing them to cease flowing.
- Defendant transported the extracted water to a distant tract of land for use there, not on his overlying land.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Defendant in a California trial court, seeking to enjoin the diversion of water from their wells.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a nonsuit.
- Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of nonsuit to the California Supreme Court.
- The California Supreme Court issued an initial opinion reversing the trial court's decision.
- The Court subsequently granted the defendant's petition for a rehearing to reconsider the novel and important legal questions involved.
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 have an absolute right under California common law to extract percolating groundwater for any purpose, including for use on distant land, even if it harms a neighboring landowner's use of the water on their own overlying land?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, J.
No. A landowner's right to percolating groundwater is not absolute but is limited by the doctrine of reasonable use. The English common law rule of absolute ownership, which allows a landowner to take all the water they can capture regardless of the effect on neighbors, is ill-suited to the arid conditions of California and would lead to injustice. Courts are not bound to follow common law rules when the conditions that gave rise to the rule are absent. In California, water is a scarce and precious resource essential for agriculture and development. Applying a rule that amounts to 'might makes right' would destroy existing investments and discourage future development. Therefore, the court adopts the rule of correlative rights, which holds that owners of land overlying a common groundwater source have a shared right to the reasonable use of that water on their overlying land. The rights of these overlying owners are paramount, and an appropriator may only take surplus water for use on distant lands that is not needed by the overlying landowners.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally reshaped California water law by rejecting the English common law rule of absolute ownership for groundwater and establishing the doctrine of correlative rights. The case recognized that water in arid regions is a shared, limited resource, not a private commodity subject to absolute capture. This created a new legal framework prioritizing the rights of overlying landowners and establishing a hierarchy of water rights that has profoundly influenced water law and policy throughout the American West. The decision ensures that groundwater disputes are resolved based on principles of reasonableness and equity rather than the sheer power to extract.
