OCR Text |
Show 420 MINNESOTA proprietors, unless the former is negligent.81 A later case bears this out.82 Conflicts or disputes over rights to use diffused surface water have not arisen often enough to cause the courts to announce any specific rules relating thereto, since the disputes which have captured the court's attention have dealt with problems arising from efforts to get rid of such water. However, it is likely that the permit system does not apply to diffused surface water, and that, under the majority rule in most jurisdictions, a landowner should be entitled to capture and use diffused water on his land, although there is some dictum that Minnesota might apply a "reasonable use" limitation.83 4. Ground Water Although an early case dealing with subterranean percolating water contains some contradictory language, the court actually seemed to adopt the "reasonable use" test.84 In that case a wasteful use of percolating water was not permitted where it affected springs on the land of another, which were the source of a municipal water supply. The statement which seemed to be contradictory indicated that a landowner may use all the water he can capture for necessary uses on his own land, even if adjoining owners are in fact prejudiced by his use.85 If this does not suggest a philosophy akin to absolute ownership, it at least suggests that the landowner could have dried up the springs (and thus the municipal water supply) if his use had been for necessary purposes. The statement need not be given much weight now, however, because the reasonable use theory was subse- quently clearly applied in the leading case of Erichson v. Grookston Waterworks Power <& Light Co.,86 where an artesian basin was in- volved, and where the court said that a landowner using ground water for domestic purposes may be required to suffer some damage through impairment of the natural artesian pressure in his well so that others also may make a reasonable use of the basin waters (water supply for inhabitants of a municipality). The artesian basin appar- ently was large enough to supply all surface landowners, and the question was solely one of reducing hydrostatic head. No "correlative rights" problems was involved. Since 1937, ground water is subject to the permit system, except for existing or limited domestic uses, as discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2, supra. The procedure for acquiring a permit is the same as for surface waters. The Commissioner may require owners of artesian wells to control them to prevent waste,87 and a well with a casing of over 6 inches in diameter may not be abandoned without first notify- ing the Commissioner. Well logs from the drilling of wells and test pumping information must be sent to the director of the division of waters. 81 See J. Sax, Water Law, Planning & Policy: Gases and Materials, 500 (1968). ^ Sachs v. Ohiatj 281 Minn. 524, 32 A.L.R. 2d 199 (1968). 83 Bush v. City of Rochester, 191 Minn. 591, 255 N.W. 256 (1934). 84 Still-water Water Co. v. Farmer, 89 Minn. 58, 93 N.W. 907 (1903) and 92 Minn. 230, 99 N.W. 882 (1904). ss Id. 93 N.W. at 908-09 (1903). 88 100 Minn. 481, 111 N.W. 391 (1907) and 105 Minn. 182,117 N.W. 435 (1908). w Sees. 105.51 (1), (2), and (3). |