MacArtor v. The Graylyn Crest III Swim Club, Inc.
1963 Del. Ch. LEXIS 74, 41 Del. Ch. 26, 187 A.2d 417 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's use of percolating groundwater is governed by the 'reasonable user' doctrine, which requires a court to balance the competing interests of adjacent landowners by considering the nature of their uses and the resulting harm.
Facts:
- The MacArtors (plaintiffs) used a shallow, bricked well, approximately 4 feet deep, for their residential water supply.
- Graylyn Crest III Swim Club, Inc. (defendant) leased adjacent property and constructed a swimming pool.
- The Swim Club drilled a 200-foot deep well approximately 200 feet from the MacArtors' well to supply water for its 240,000-gallon pool.
- On July 7, 1960, the Swim Club began pumping water to fill its pool.
- By the following morning, the water level in the MacArtors' well dropped below the intake pipe, making it unusable.
- Experts for both parties agreed at trial that the two wells drew from a common underground water source.
- The Swim Club's pumping, both to initially fill the pool over a three-week period and for intermittent use during the season, continuously rendered the MacArtors' well unusable.
Procedural Posture:
- The MacArtors (plaintiffs) filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Graylyn Crest III Swim Club, Inc. (defendant).
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the defendant from using its well and loudspeaker, and also requested damages.
- At a preliminary motion stage, the court rejected the English rule of absolute ownership of percolating water, opting to decide the applicable legal principle after a full trial.
- The case then proceeded to a final hearing before the Chancellor.
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 use of a deep well to draw large, concentrated quantities of percolating water for recreational purposes, which consequently renders a neighboring residential shallow well unusable, constitute an unreasonable use of water for which the neighbor is entitled to relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Seitz, Chancellor
Yes. A landowner's use of percolating water that deprives an adjacent landowner of water for their household is an unreasonable use when the former's use is for recreational purposes and involves drawing a disproportionately large volume of water. The court rejected the English rule of absolute ownership in favor of the 'reasonable user' doctrine, which allows for a balancing of equities. In applying this doctrine, the court weighed several factors. While the plaintiffs' well was 'objectively marginal,' they were still entitled to protection from an unreasonable use. The court gave greater weight to the plaintiffs' domestic use over the defendant's recreational use. It also found that the defendant's withdrawal of a very large volume of water in concentrated periods far exceeded the normal residential need for the area. Although the defendant was initially unaware of the harm, its continued use after becoming aware was not unqualifiedly reasonable. Therefore, instead of a simple permanent injunction, the court fashioned an equitable remedy requiring the parties to share the cost of deepening the plaintiffs' well to accommodate both uses.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its formal adoption of the American 'reasonable user' doctrine for percolating groundwater in Delaware, moving away from the harsher English rule of absolute ownership ('rule of capture'). The decision establishes that water rights are not absolute but are correlative, meaning they must be considered in relation to the rights of other landowners sharing the same resource. By crafting a conditional, cost-sharing remedy, the court demonstrated the flexibility of its equitable powers to fashion practical solutions that accommodate competing interests rather than declaring one party a winner and the other a loser. This approach set a precedent for resolving similar resource disputes through a fact-intensive balancing test that encourages shared responsibility.
