Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Rounsaville

Court of Appeals of Texas
320 S.W.2d 211 (1959)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landowner has a natural property right to the precipitation that nature provides from the clouds passing over their land, and a court of equity may issue an injunction to prevent others from interfering with that right through artificial weather modification.

Facts:

Appellees are ranchmen in Jeff Davis County, Texas, whose lands depend on natural rainfall to grow forage for their livestock.
Appellants, a weather modification company, were hired by farmers in an area east of the appellees' lands to conduct a hail suppression program.
Appellants operated airplanes over the appellees' ranch lands and seeded clouds by discharging foreign substances, such as silver iodide, into them.
The stated purpose of the cloud seeding was to prevent the formation of hail in clouds that appellants claimed originated over the Davis Mountains in the appellees' area.
Appellees and other lay witnesses observed that on numerous occasions, potential rain clouds over their properties would dissipate and fail to produce rain within minutes after appellants' planes began seeding them.
In some instances, witnesses observed that a light rain or sprinkle that had already begun over their land ceased shortly after the cloud seeding operations commenced.

Procedural Posture:

A group of ranchmen (appellees) sued a weather modification company and its contractors (appellants) in the Eighty-third District Court of Jeff Davis County, Texas, a state trial court.
The ranchmen sought a temporary injunction to stop the company from seeding clouds over their lands.
The trial court heard testimony from lay witnesses and scientific experts and granted the temporary injunction against the appellants.
The appellants (the weather modification company) appealed the trial court's order granting the injunction to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.

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 a protectable property right in the natural rainfall from clouds over their land, such that a court can enjoin others from engaging in cloud seeding activities that are found to interfere with that natural precipitation?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. A landowner is entitled to such precipitation as Nature deigns to bestow and is thereby entitled to the rainfall that may come from clouds over their own property. This natural right is a component of land ownership, and courts may protect it from improper and unlawful interference. The court reasoned that property rights extend beyond mere ownership and possession to include the unrestricted use and enjoyment of the land. Because natural precipitation is essential to the reasonable use of land, particularly for ranching, it constitutes a 'natural right' that merits judicial protection. While acknowledging the novelty of the issue and the conflicting expert testimony on the effects of cloud seeding, the court held that the trial court had ample evidence from lay witnesses to find that the appellants' activities were destroying potential rain clouds over the appellees' properties. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an injunction to prevent this interference and the resulting irreparable harm.

Analysis:

This case is a foundational decision in the field of weather modification law, establishing a common law basis for atmospheric water rights. By characterizing the right to natural precipitation as a 'natural right' inherent in land ownership, the court grounded a novel claim in traditional property law principles. This precedent empowers landowners to seek equitable relief against weather modification activities they believe harm their interests. The decision highlights the judiciary's willingness to act in the absence of legislative regulation and to rely on lay testimony in cases involving complex scientific phenomena with conflicting expert opinions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Rounsaville (1959)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"