In a previous blog, we looked into who owns an aquifer: does it belong to private individuals or the public? Under the ad coelum doctrine, the surface owner holds the ground itself – rocks, dirt, and the like – as private property, owned all the way down to the Earth’s core. On the other hand, the public collectively owns water, taken for private use through the rule of capture, or the ferae naturae doctrine.[1] Because an aquifer is a “body of permeable rock which can contain or transmit groundwater,”[2] the rules related to aquifers are a complex combination of the two competing doctrines. In our previous update, we highlighted a California district court case, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Desert Water Agency, et al, that seeks an answer to the question of aquifer pore space ownership.[3]
Background
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) sued the Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Authority (“Defendants”) to protect the aquifer under its reservation from groundwater depletion and water quality degradation. The Tribe argued that the pore spaces within the aquifer are its property under the ad coelum doctrine. The Defendants believe that the public owns pore spaces. The court has not yet addressed the question of whether the pore spaces are public or private property. However, the case has progressed since our last post and we are due for an update.
The Tribe and Defendants agreed to split the litigation into three phases when the Tribe first filed the case in 2013. Phase 1 was to decide whether the Tribe had a reserved right to groundwater in principle. Thereafter, Phase 2 would resolve if this reserved right contained a water quality component, the method of quantification of a reserved groundwater right, and if the Tribe owned pore spaces within the aquifer. Phase 3, if necessary, would quantify the Tribe’s reserved groundwater right and ownership of pore space.
In Phase 1, the court granted summary judgment to the Tribe on its groundwater right claim. The decision essentially declared without a trial that the Tribe did in fact have a reserved right to groundwater. Phase 2 was delayed while the Defendants unsuccessfully appealed to the 9th Circuit and then unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court review.
Update
Like Phase 1, Phase 2 proceeded to summary judgment. The court ruled that the Tribe can seek a declaration that it has an ownership interest in sufficient pore space to store its groundwater. However, the Tribe did not argue that it owns the pore space as a “constituent element” of its land ownership in its initial complaint, and the court could not consider it. Recently, the Tribe submitted an amended complaint including its pore space as “constituent element” of land ownership argument, which is now before the court.
The question of whether the Tribe has ownership of the pore space beneath its reservation is the only item left for the court to decide in this phase; the answer could have a real impact on groundwater issues, as it may be one of the first cases to directly address the pore space question. Another controversy is bubbling over pore spaces in North Dakota, starting with the case Mosser v. Denbury Res., Inc., 2017 ND 169 (2017), passage of H.B. 2344, and legal challenges to the bill by the NW Landowners. Keep an eye on the blog for our next update on this case that could affect you!
This blog was drafted with the assistance of Drew Hancherick, a current law student attending Lewis and Clark Law School.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos
[2] Oxford Online Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aquifer
[3] The case is presently before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Docket No. ED CV 13-00883-JGB-SPX. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on May 14, 2013.
