Henderson v. Wade Sand & Gravel Co., Inc.

Citations: 388 So. 2d 900; 1980 Ala. LEXIS 3134Docket: 79-112

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; August 22, 1980; Alabama; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In *Henderson v. Wade Sand and Gravel Company*, the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed a case involving three homeowners from Jefferson County seeking damages for property injuries caused by a neighboring quarry's operations. The homeowners' properties began to sink and develop sinkholes due to groundwater being drained by the quarry, which had been operational since 1957. The quarry discharged water into a creek, leading to the erosion of soil beneath the plaintiffs' homes, exacerbated by heavy rains. Although a U.S. Geological Survey study predicted such damage would occur if the quarry continued its practices, the trial court excluded this evidence and granted a directed verdict for the quarry, citing precedents that upheld the 'American rule' allowing reasonable use of percolating waters without liability unless the drainage was unnecessary or negligent. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of improper water pumping by the quarry. However, upon reevaluation of the prevailing legal doctrine, the court indicated a willingness to overturn the established precedents (Sloss I and Sloss II) that shaped the ruling.

The legal treatment of underground waters has evolved since the first English case in 1840, leading to a complex common-law framework influenced by regional differences in geography, climate, and population. In the eastern United States, underground waters are classified as either 'percolating water' or underground streams, with distinct legal implications for each. A subterranean stream, flowing in a defined channel, is governed by the same principles as surface watercourses. In contrast, percolating water lacks a defined channel and is subject to different rules.

The traditional English rule allowed landowners to freely withdraw ground water, treating it as absolute property akin to soil and minerals. This rule, while framed in property terms, functioned as a rule of capture, enabling landowners to extract water potentially affecting neighboring landowners. This approach was at odds with the principle of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, prompting a shift to the 'reasonable use' standard in American law. This American rule maintained the capture theory but included prohibitions against waste and some protections for neighboring wells and springs.

The American rule emerged with the advent of high-capacity pumps, which allowed cities to deplete water tables, impacting farmers' access to water. Consequently, cities were required to compensate affected farmers, aligning with tort principles of loss distribution. While the rule permitted landowners to withdraw water for beneficial uses without liability to neighbors, it did not require apportionment among users or offer protections to adjacent wells and springs. The Restatement rules specifically address scenarios where a neighboring landowner's water supply is compromised rather than direct land damage.

Some jurisdictions align with Alabama's reasonable use rule, while others limit its application to cases of competing water uses. A Florida Supreme Court case emphasized that when a defendant diverts groundwater from adjacent land for their own use without utilizing the water, traditional nuisance law is more relevant than the reasonable use rules. This case indicated that there was no conflict over proprietary rights to the subterranean water itself, as interference with the plaintiffs’ use of their spring stemmed from the defendant's actions not aimed at water extraction. The court noted that the reasonable use rule, which evolved from absolute ownership rights, does not apply when the water's impact is incidental to land use. Under common law, a party can be liable for water use interference through intentional or negligent actions. The court criticized the Sloss cases for potentially allowing harmful practices by landowners, asserting that a balance must be established between individual property rights and societal interests. The court concluded that nuisance law should govern cases where groundwater use is compromised by a defendant's land use activities and remanded the case for further trial consideration. Dissenting opinions highlighted the need for legislative intervention to balance the rights of landowners against the public good.