| OCR Text |
Show OVERVIEW 7 water, legal doctrines were modified and public regulation of with- drawal and use became common, but many troublesome problems remain in ground water management and administration. Ground water is sometimes thought to be all water under the ground, but this is accurate neither from the standpoint of law nor of hydrology. Soil moisture and suspended water, usually located in a zone of aeration above the ground water table, is not ground water. Hydrologically speaking, ground water is water found in saturated pores and other interstices of subsurface rock formations. However, for legal purposes, ground water is commonly divided into two classes, namely: (1) underground streams which flow in known and definite underground channels; and (2) percolating waters, which ooze, seep, or flow beneath the surface of the earth in no known or identifiable natural channels. These legal distinctions are often at variance with scientific truth, since no such distinc- tions actually exist in many areas. The law relating to underground streams is essentially the same as that which applies to surface waters, while legal concepts relating to percolating water are quite different. All ground water is pre- sumed in law to be percolating water, and anyone contending other- wise must prove that the water is part of an underground stream, and must also prove the location and bounds of the underground stream. The English view of ground water, which was announced by the courts much later than the rules governing riparian rights in sur- face water, was that the owner of the land owned all of the water within or under it, because it was deemed to be part of the soil. The consequence was that a landowner had no liability for any use he made of ground water though his use damaged others. The same rule was initially applied by many of the States in this country, but was soon modified to limit the landowner to a reason- able use because it became evident that ground water moved in sub- terranean aquifers and use of, or interference with, such water could affect other landowners. As more knowledge was acquired with respect to the subterra- nean migration of water and its interconnection with surface water- courses, further doctrines were developed. When a number of persons owned land overlying an aquifer, withdrawal of water by one would affect all, and many States pronounced a doctrine of cor- relative rights whereby each landowner was held to have rights in the common pool in proportion to his land overlying the pool. Some States applied the appropriation doctrine to ground water, so that rights could only be acquired by withdrawing the water and applying it to a beneficial use. Where appropriation procedures re- quire filing an application, obtaining an approval thereof, perfect- ing the right and obtaining a certificate of appropriation, the same basic procedures must be followed to obtain a ground water right. Ground water law has not yet developed satisfactory answers to a number of vexing problems in management and administration of underground basins, reservoirs, or aquifers. One difficulty is in deter- mining the extent to which the owner of a ground water right has, |
