State v. Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc.
217 N.W.2d 339, 63 Wis. 2d 278, 219 N.W.2d 308 (1974)
Rule of Law:
Wisconsin transitioned from the absolute ownership rule to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 858A, for percolating groundwater rights, establishing that a possessor of land who withdraws groundwater for a beneficial purpose may be liable for unreasonable harm caused to another through lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure.
Facts:
- A sewer construction project was undertaken by Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc. (the defendants-respondents).
- The sewer project caused adverse effects on the underground water levels in the surrounding area.
- Numerous persons and landowners in the neighborhood adjacent to and near the project experienced a lowering of their water table and reduction in artesian pressure.
- The State (appellant) initiated a legal action seeking relief for the affected citizens, not to abate the project but to require the respondents to eliminate or ameliorate the hardship and adverse effects.
- The respondents asserted the public utility and necessity of the sewer project.
- The appellant argued that the increased cost of providing water to affected parties should be distributed among the larger community benefiting from the project, rather than solely borne by adjacent landowners.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a complaint in trial court against Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc., alleging public nuisance due to a sewer project's impact on groundwater.
- Michels Pipeline Construction, Inc. filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the demurrer, dismissing the State's public nuisance claim based on the precedent of Huber v. Merkel, which held there was no cause of action for interference with percolating groundwater.
- The State appealed the trial court's order granting the demurrer to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin (the court whose opinion is briefed here).
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 complaint alleging that a sewer construction project caused unreasonable harm to numerous surrounding landowners by lowering the water table and reducing artesian pressure state a cause of action for public nuisance under common law, thereby requiring a re-evaluation of Wisconsin's absolute ownership rule for percolating groundwater?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkie, J.
Yes, the complaint states a cause of action for public nuisance under common law against the defendant, as Wisconsin's previous rule of absolute ownership for percolating groundwater is hereby overruled and replaced with a modified reasonable use doctrine consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 858A. The court first determined that the complaint sufficiently alleged a public nuisance because it described injury to 'numerous persons and the area adjacent to and near the project,' which constitutes a sufficiently large number of persons in a local neighborhood, not requiring that the entire community be affected. The degree of harm alleged goes to the appropriate remedy rather than the existence of the nuisance. Secondly, the court addressed the cause of action for groundwater interference by overruling Huber v. Merkel, which had established an absolute ownership rule for percolating groundwater, allowing landowners to use or divert water with impunity, even with malicious intent. The Huber rule was based on the antiquated belief that underground water was too mysterious and unpredictable for effective regulation. The court recognized that modern scientific knowledge in hydrology now allows for the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships for groundwater use, enabling fair liability adjudication. The court emphasized that stare decisis is not an inflexible restraint, particularly for common-law rules that are found to be unsuited to present conditions. It noted that the Huber rule was not ancient or universally accepted, and many American jurisdictions had already abandoned it for reasonable use or correlative rights doctrines. The court found an inherent inconsistency in allowing one property owner to detrimentally affect a neighbor's water supply without compensation while claiming an absolute property right. Rejecting the English (absolute ownership) and traditional American (reasonable use and correlative rights) rules as too limited or administratively difficult, the court adopted Section 858A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This new rule preserves a basic privilege to use groundwater but creates liability exceptions for 'unreasonable harm' caused by lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure, or for interference with underground streams or surface waters. The court clarified that 'unreasonable harm' involves balancing circumstances, suggesting that those causing substantial harm should bear costs like deepening wells or providing alternate water sources, especially when impacting smaller users like domestic wells.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant departure from Wisconsin's long-standing common law regarding percolating groundwater, aligning the state with the majority of American jurisdictions that have adopted more modern and equitable approaches. By overruling the absolute ownership rule established in Huber v. Merkel and adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858A, the court acknowledged the advancements in hydrological science and the need to adapt legal principles to contemporary realities. This decision provides a crucial avenue for property owners to seek redress for harm caused by large-scale groundwater withdrawals, particularly from public or industrial projects, fostering a more equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of such developments. It underscores the dynamic nature of common law, demonstrating the judiciary's willingness to reform outdated doctrines to meet evolving societal needs and principles of fairness.
