Story Case

Mr. Bowman lived just outside the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, upon an estate that had been in the Bowman family for seventy years. The proudest possession of this estate was an artesian well, which was fed from a well denned underground stream, supposed to arise in the mountains. Mr. Bowman's chief enemy was his neighbor, notorious for his mean disposition. This neighbor, one day, decided to spoil the natural fountain on the estate next to his. He hired an expert to find the underground watercourse, which he presumed flowed under his land. After some borings, the channel was discovered. The vein of water was then tapped, by digging a well near Mr. Bowman's boundary, and the water allowed to flow into the brook which ran over both estates. Mr. Houseman brought suit against his neighbor and asked for an injunction upon him to cease using this water. Will he succeed?

Ruling Court Case. Acton Vs. Blundell, Volume 10, Meison And Wilsly Reports, Page 34

Acton was the owner of a parcel of land, on which he owned and operated a saw mill. In order to get water for the running of the mill, a well had been sunk thereon. Later, Blundell sank a coal pit on his land, about three-quarters of a mile from Acton's well, and at a still later period, he had sunk another mine at a less distance; as a consequence of the two coal pits, the water supply of Acton's well was rendered insufficient to operate his mill. This was an action by Acton for damages.

Acton claimed that he had a right to the free and uninterrupted flow of underground waters, and that the sinking of the coal pit by Blundell was an unlawful interference with his right.

Mr. Chief Justice Tindall said: "The case, herein, falls within that principle which gives to the owner of the soil all that lies beneath his surface; that the land immediately below is his property, whether it is solid rock or porous ground, or venous earth, or part soil or part water; that the person who owns the surface may dig therein, and apply all that is there found to his own purposes at his free will and pleasure; and that if, in the exercise of such right, he intercepts or drains off the water collected from underground springs in his neighbor's well, this inconvenience to his neighbor causes no ground for damage. Judgment was given for Blundell.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Percolating waters are those which filter through the soil, underground, having no well defined channel. No owner of land can lay any claim to such waters. Even though a person has a well, supplied from percolating waters, he cannot complain if an adjacent land owner sinks a mine and draws away all of this water so that his well becomes worthless. The reason for this rule is the extreme difficulty of ascertaining anything about the meanderings of underground water. The running of water on the surface of the ground is open and notorious, and the rights in reference to it can be easily fixed; but such right, in the nature of things, cannot be definitely stated as regards percolating waters.

In the Story Case, however, we deal, not with water that percolates through sand or gravel in undefined courses, but with an actual stream running in a definite ascertainable channel or tunnel. With the natural outlet of such a water course there can be no interference. Each owner has the right to a reasonable use of water in a stream or channel, though this channel is underground. Mr. Houseman will succeed in his effort to restore the artesian well to his estate.