Wiggins v. Brazil Coal and Clay Corp.
452 N.E.2d 958, 1983 Ind. LEXIS 934 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Indiana, ground water is considered part of the land it is found in and belongs to the owner of that land, who may use it to the fullest extent for the beneficial enjoyment of the land, provided such use does not cause injury gratuitously or maliciously to neighboring lands.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Charles A. and Ruth P. Wiggins, along with other plaintiffs who purchased lots from them, owned real estate in Clay County, Indiana, which included a freshwater lake (a 'strip pit').
- The lake was formed prior to 1960 from a previous strip-mining operation and was not fed by streams, relying instead on percolating and surface waters, slowly increasing in depth over the years until September 1977.
- Mr. and Mrs. Wiggins used their property, 'Sugar Ridge Lake Estates,' for private enjoyment, catfish farming, and later began developing it as a subdivision for residential homes.
- Defendant, Brazil Coal and Clay Corporation, began a surface coal mining operation near the plaintiffs' property in 1975.
- In August 1977, while Brazil Coal's dragline was digging at a depth of 50-55 feet, substantial amounts of water rushed into the bottom of their mining pit from below, flooding it.
- To continue its mining operation, Brazil Coal drilled wells and pumped water from these wells and pits to dewater its excavation, which it deemed 'necessary and reasonable' for the mining operation.
- It was discovered that the water flooding Brazil Coal's pit was coming from plaintiffs' strip lake via old deep mine shafts or other unknown subterranean passages, and the dewatering caused plaintiffs' strip lake to be drained.
- Before August 1977, Brazil Coal had no knowledge of any connection between plaintiffs' strip lake and its mine, and maps of the area did not disclose such a connection.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Wiggins and others sued Brazil Coal and Clay Corporation in a trial court in Clay County, Indiana, seeking damages and an injunction.
- The trial judge made special findings of fact and entered conclusions of law and final judgment in favor of Brazil Coal and Clay Corporation (defendant).
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment to the First District Court of Appeals of Indiana.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, modifying case law by adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts provisions for determining the liability of users of ground water.
- Brazil Coal and Clay Corporation (defendant) filed a petition to transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme 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's right to extract groundwater for a reasonable and necessary beneficial use of their land, without malice or gratuitous injury, take precedence over a neighboring landowner's resulting loss of percolating water from their strip pit?
Opinions:
Majority - DeBruler, Justice
Yes, a landowner's right to extract groundwater for a reasonable and necessary beneficial use of their land, without malice or gratuitous injury, takes precedence over a neighboring landowner's resulting loss of percolating water from their strip pit. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the long-standing Indiana common law rule that groundwater is part of the land it is found in and belongs to the owner, who may use it for the enjoyment of their land. This right is only limited if the injury to neighboring lands is caused gratuitously or maliciously. The Court distinguished prior cases involving riparian rights or direct physical trespass, noting that the plaintiffs' land was not physically invaded by vibrations or forces. Citing precedents like New Albany and Salem Railroad Company v. Peterson (1860) and City of Greencastle v. Hazelett (1864), the Court reasoned that damage resulting from lawful and proper digging on one's own land to divert underground water is not compensable. The Court found that Brazil Coal's mining was conducted in a reasonable, necessary, and lawful manner for a beneficial purpose, without intent to injure the plaintiffs, and the water loss was a result of natural percolation through the earth. The Court declined to modify the common law rule governing groundwater property or adopt the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858.
Dissenting - Hunter, Justice
No, a landowner's right to extract groundwater should not take precedence over a neighboring landowner's significant loss of percolating water, especially when the actions cause unreasonable harm and contradict modern legislative intent. Justice Hunter dissented, arguing for the adoption of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858, as the Court of Appeals had done. He contended that the common law rule on groundwater is outdated, formulated when scientific understanding of hydrology was limited, and based on an absolute ownership theory that conflicts with modern property and tort law, including nuisance and environmental regulations. Hunter highlighted the inconsistency with riparian rights, which consider the needs of all water users, and argued that a business should bear its own costs rather than shifting them to innocent landowners. He asserted that the majority's holding conflicts with the intent of the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and subsequent Indiana legislation (Ind.Code § 13-4.1-8-1(25)), both of which aim to protect the public and environment from mining damages and provide remedies for water supply diminution. Hunter noted that the trial court's findings showed Brazil Coal continued pumping even after knowing it was draining the plaintiffs' lake to prevent future problems, which he considered an 'unreasonable harm' under a modern standard. He urged the court to adapt the common law to reflect changing societal needs and legislative policy.
Analysis:
This case significantly reaffirms Indiana's long-standing adherence to the 'absolute ownership' or 'English rule' for percolating groundwater, emphasizing a landowner's broad right to use groundwater beneath their property for beneficial purposes related to the land, even if it negatively impacts neighbors, provided there is no malicious intent or gratuitous injury. The decision highlights the Indiana Supreme Court's strong reluctance to depart from established common law precedent in the absence of explicit legislative action, despite compelling arguments for modernization and alignment with other property law principles and environmental concerns. This ruling places the burden of costs from 'reasonable and necessary' groundwater extraction by industries directly on affected landowners, leaving them without legal recourse for substantial damages to their property's water resources.
