Martin v. City of Linden
667 So.2d 732 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the American rule of reasonable use, a landowner may not withdraw groundwater from their property for sale and use on distant, non-overlying land if it causes harm or poses a risk of irreparable injury to an adjacent landowner who shares the same aquifer.
Facts:
- The City of Linden's municipal water supply was contaminated with saltwater and unfit for consumption.
- In 1983, the City purchased a one-acre tract of land adjacent to Judy Martin's farm, sharing a common underground aquifer.
- The City's sole purpose for purchasing the land was to drill a well to extract freshwater for its citizens.
- The City planned to pump approximately 500,000 gallons of water per day and transport it via pipeline 15 miles away to be sold to its residents.
- Judy Martin presented expert testimony that this large-scale withdrawal could cause the saltwater contamination front to move into the freshwater aquifer.
- This saltwater intrusion would irreversibly ruin the water supply for her farm, effectively destroying much of the land's value.
Procedural Posture:
- In a prior action, Martin's ex-husband, Roy Hereford, and other landowners sued the City of Linden to block the drilling of a test well.
- The trial court in that case denied the injunction.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded on procedural grounds, holding that the City needed a permit from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) for the test well (Hereford v. City of Linden).
- Subsequently, ADEM issued a permit to the City to drill a permanent well.
- Martin then filed the present action in the Montgomery Circuit Court (trial court) against the City, seeking to enjoin the drilling of the permanent well.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Linden, holding that Martin's lawsuit was premature and that she must wait until actual damages occurred.
- Martin appealed the trial court's summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the American rule of reasonable use, does a municipality's proposed withdrawal of a large volume of groundwater from a one-acre tract for transportation and sale 15 miles away, which poses a risk of irreparable harm to an adjacent landowner's water supply, constitute a permissible use of the water?
Opinions:
Majority - Maddox, J.
No, the City of Linden's proposed use is not permissible under the rule of reasonable use. This rule limits the use of groundwater to purposes incident to the beneficial enjoyment of the land from which it is obtained. Diverting or selling water for use on distant lands is not a reasonable use if it impairs the water supply of an adjacent landowner. The Court explicitly rejected the notion that a municipality has greater rights than a private landowner in this context, stating they stand on the same footing. Furthermore, Martin was not required to wait for actual damage to sue; the imminent threat of irreparable harm, such as irreversible saltwater contamination, is sufficient to seek an injunction and makes the action ripe for review.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the American rule of reasonable use for groundwater in Alabama and crucially defines one of its key limitations. By prohibiting the large-scale extraction of groundwater for commercial sale and use on non-overlying land to the detriment of neighboring landowners, the Court protects property owners from having their water resources depleted by municipalities or corporations. This precedent prevents a 'race to the bottom' where the party with the largest pump could drain a shared aquifer. The ruling significantly impacts municipal water planning and any commercial water extraction operations, requiring them to account for the rights of adjacent landowners who depend on the same water source.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. City of Linden