Cline v. Am. Aggregates Corp., - 15 Ohio St. 3d 384, 474 N.E.2d 324 (1984)

Rule:

A proprietor of land or his grantee who withdraws ground water from the land and uses it for a beneficial purpose is not subject to liability for interference with the use of water by another, unless (a) the withdrawal of ground water unreasonably causes harm to a proprietor of neighboring land through lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure, (b) the withdrawal of ground water exceeds the proprietor's reasonable share of the annual supply or total store of ground water, or (c) the withdrawal of the ground water has a direct and substantial effect upon a watercourse or lake and unreasonably causes harm to a person entitled to the use of its water.

Facts:

American Aggregates Corporation, appellee herein, operates a sand, gravel, and stone quarrying operation in Jackson Township located in Franklin County. Since 1971, appellee has extracted limestone from its quarry. As part of the procedure utilized by appellee to extract limestone from its property, water must be pumped from the pits created by the quarrying operation. Appellants herein are twenty-six landowners whose properties were also located in Jackson Township. Appellants commenced an action in the court of common pleas alleging that their entire domestic water needs were supplied by wells located on their properties. Appellants further alleged that the quarry's operations adversely affected the quality of the water they obtained from their wells. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment on the basis that this state did not recognize a cause of action for appellants' injuries. The court of appeals affirmed, but suggested that the common law, as evidenced by Frazier v. Brown (1861), 12 Ohio St. 294, which did not recognize a cause of action on behalf of a landowner for damages resulting from a neighbor's use of underground percolating water, should be reexamined. 

Issue:

Did the court incorrectly apply Frazier v. Brown, 12 Ohio St. 294 (1861)?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Appellants suggested, and this court was persuaded, that the better standard to apply to ground water issues is found in the Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 858. Section 858 applies a reasonable use doctrine to underground water, as set forth below: A proprietor of land or his grantee who withdraws ground water from the land and uses it for a beneficial purpose is not subject to liability for interference with the use of water by another, unless (a) the withdrawal of ground water unreasonably causes harm to a proprietor of neighboring land through lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure, (b) the withdrawal of ground water exceeds the proprietor's reasonable share of the annual supply or total store of ground water, or (c) the withdrawal of the ground water has a direct and substantial effect upon a watercourse or lake and unreasonably causes harm to a person entitled to the use of its water. This reasonable use doctrine was much more equitable in the resolution of ground water conflicts. The court overruled Frazier v. Brown, supra, and all its progeny and adopts Section 858 of the Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, as the common law of Ohio.  Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.