Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc.
1 S.W.3d 75 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Texas, the common-law rule of capture allows a landowner to pump as much groundwater as they choose from beneath their land without liability to neighbors for depleting their wells, absent malice, willful waste, or negligent subsidence. The court will defer to the legislature to modify this rule, as groundwater regulation is a legislative function under the Texas Constitution.
Facts:
- Bart Sipriano, Harold Fain, and Doris Fain (Sipriano) are landowners in Henderson County, Texas.
- Great Spring Waters of America, Inc., also known as Ozarka Natural Spring Water Co. (Ozarka), owned adjacent land.
- In 1996, Ozarka began pumping approximately 90,000 gallons of groundwater per day, seven days a week, from its property.
- Shortly after Ozarka began its extensive pumping, Sipriano's water wells were severely depleted.
Procedural Posture:
- Bart Sipriano and other landowners sued Great Spring Waters of America, Inc. (Ozarka) in a Texas trial court, seeking injunctive relief and damages for nuisance, negligence, and other claims.
- Ozarka filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Sipriano's claims were barred by the Texas rule of capture.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ozarka.
- Sipriano, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that any change to such a well-settled rule should come from the legislature or the Texas Supreme Court.
- Sipriano then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 the common-law rule of capture bar a landowner's claims for nuisance and negligence against a neighboring landowner whose extensive groundwater pumping depletes their wells?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Enoch
Yes, the common-law rule of capture bars the landowners' claims. The court declined to abandon the long-standing rule of capture in favor of a rule of reasonable use, deferring instead to the Texas Legislature. The court reasoned that a 1917 amendment to the Texas Constitution explicitly grants the Legislature the duty to regulate the state's natural resources, including groundwater. Given the Legislature's recent and comprehensive efforts to manage groundwater through legislation like Senate Bill 1, which promotes local groundwater conservation districts, the court found it would be improper to judicially intervene and alter the common-law framework at this time. The court opted to wait and see if the legislative scheme proves effective before considering any change to the common law.
Concurring - Justice Hecht
Yes, the rule of capture currently bars the claim, but it should not do so indefinitely. While agreeing with the majority's decision to affirm, the concurrence argues that the rule of capture is an outdated and flawed doctrine whose original justifications are no longer valid, noting that Texas is the only state that still adheres to it. However, the concurrence agrees that judicial deference is appropriate for now, to allow the Legislature's recently enacted statutory framework a chance to prove effective. It signals that if the legislative approach fails to adequately manage groundwater resources, the court should be prepared to abrogate the rule of capture in a future case.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the vitality of the common-law rule of capture in Texas but shifts the justification for its retention from its intrinsic merits to the principle of judicial deference to legislative authority. The Court strongly signals that while it will not act now, the rule's future is not guaranteed, effectively placing the onus on the Texas Legislature to create a workable regulatory scheme for groundwater. The forceful concurring opinion suggests that the court's patience is limited, creating precedential tension that may encourage future litigants to challenge the rule again if legislative solutions prove inadequate. This leaves Texas groundwater law in a state of limbo, dependent on political rather than judicial action for modernization.
Unlock the full brief for Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc.