Town of Gordonsville v. Zinn
129 Va. 542, 106 SE 508, 14 A.L.R. 318 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Land is not considered riparian if it is located outside the watershed of the stream from which water is to be withdrawn. An upper riparian owner cannot divert water for use on non-riparian land if the diversion causes substantial actual or threatened injury to a lower riparian owner.
Facts:
- The Town of Gordonsville (the Town) owns a one-acre lot on a stream where it maintains reservoirs to supply water to its residents.
- Upstream from the Town's lot, an individual named Zinn owns a larger tract of land.
- A 25-foot strip of Zinn's land is riparian, as it directly abuts the stream upstream from the Town's property.
- Zinn's dwelling house is situated on a portion of her tract that is located outside the watershed of the stream at the point where she intends to withdraw water.
- Zinn intended to install pipes to withdraw water from the stream at her riparian 25-foot strip and transport it to her non-riparian dwelling house for use.
- The Town has diverted water from its lot for use by its residents for a period longer than the statutory requirement for prescription.
- During periods of drought, the stream's flow is significantly reduced, creating a conflict over the limited water supply between the parties.
Procedural Posture:
- The Town of Gordonsville filed a bill in a trial court seeking an injunction to prevent Zinn from diverting water from the stream.
- The trial court dismissed the Town's bill and denied the injunction.
- The Town of Gordonsville, as appellant, appealed the trial court's adverse decision to this court, with Zinn as the appellee.
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 an upper riparian landowner have the right to divert water from a stream for use on a non-riparian portion of their land, if such diversion would cause substantial injury to a lower riparian owner with established prescriptive rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Sims, J.
No. An upper riparian landowner does not have the right to divert water for use on non-riparian land where it would cause substantial injury to a lower riparian owner. The court's reasoning proceeds in two main parts. First, it adopts the 'watershed limitation,' which defines riparian land as land located within the natural watershed of the stream at the point in question. Because Zinn's dwelling house is outside this watershed, it is non-riparian land and has no inherent right to the stream's water. Second, the court holds that the water rights associated with Zinn's small riparian strip cannot be transferred for use on her non-riparian land if it harms a lower user. Although a plaintiff must typically show substantial injury to obtain an injunction, the Town has met this burden. The Town has acquired a vested prescriptive right to divert a certain quantity of water, and Zinn's proposed diversion threatens to substantially injure this right, especially during droughts. Therefore, the Town is entitled to an injunction protecting its established water supply.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'watershed rule' as a primary test for defining the extent of riparian land, bringing the jurisdiction in line with the majority of American states. The ruling reinforces the principle that riparian rights are appurtenant to the land and cannot be severed for use on non-riparian tracts if it harms other riparian owners. Furthermore, the court gives significant weight to prescriptive rights, protecting a municipality's long-standing water use even against an upper riparian owner's novel claim. This precedent limits the ability of landowners to leverage a small parcel of riparian land to supply water to larger, non-riparian developments, thereby preserving water flow for established downstream users.
