Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.
220 U.S. 61 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, as a valid exercise of its police power, regulate the use of common natural resources to prevent waste and protect the correlative rights of all surface owners. Such regulations do not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment so long as the classifications they create have a rational basis.
Facts:
- Beneath the lands of several property owners in Saratoga Springs, New York, a porous rock formation contained a common supply of mineral water commingled with carbonic acid gas.
- Each surface owner possessed a right to drill wells into the rock and draw from this common supply.
- Natural Carbonic Gas Co. drilled wells into this rock formation and engaged in extensive pumping operations.
- The company's sole purpose for these operations was to collect the carbonic acid gas, which it then sold as a separate commodity.
- This process involved taking an undue proportion of the commingled water and gas from the common supply.
- After the gas was extracted, a large portion of the water was permitted to run to waste, which depleted the common resource and injured the rights of other property owners.
Procedural Posture:
- Lindsley, a stockholder in the Natural Carbonic Gas Co., filed a suit in federal court seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a New York state statute.
- The federal trial court dismissed Lindsley's complaint (referred to as a 'bill').
- Lindsley, the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 state statute that prohibits the pumping of mineral waters from a common underground source for the specific purpose of extracting and selling the carbonic gas, while permitting other types of pumping, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Van Devanter
No. A state statute that regulates the extraction of a common natural resource to prevent waste and protect the correlative rights of co-equal owners does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. Regarding the Due Process claim, the court found this case analogous to Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, where it held that a state has the legislative power to protect the collective owners of a common resource by preventing waste and ensuring a just distribution. The statute does not deprive owners of their property but rather regulates its use to conserve the interests of all. Regarding the Equal Protection claim, the statute's classifications are not arbitrary. The legislature could rationally conclude that pumping from deep rock wells for the purpose of vending gas is uniquely wasteful and harmful compared to other forms of pumping, justifying the targeted regulation. The burden is on the challenger to show that a classification is arbitrary, and that burden was not met here.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in both natural resources law and constitutional law. It solidifies the principle that states have broad police power to enact conservation laws to prevent the waste of shared resources like water, oil, and gas, and to protect the correlative rights of property owners. More significantly for constitutional law, the case explicitly lays out the highly deferential 'rational basis test' for evaluating equal protection challenges to economic regulations. By presuming the constitutionality of the law and placing a heavy burden on the challenger, this decision makes it very difficult to strike down economic and social legislation on equal protection grounds, a standard that remains influential today.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. (1911)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"