## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned interests in three producing oil wells in the Healdton Oil Field, located immediately north of the Dundee Healdton Sand Unit boundary (about 200 feet from the line).
- The Dundee Healdton Sand Unit was created by Oklahoma Corporation Commission order approving unitization of Section 4 for secondary recovery and authorizing water injection to prevent waste and increase ultimate recovery.
- The unit’s operator (Sinclair, later Atlantic Richfield) began waterflooding operations around 1969 by injecting water under pressure into the formation within the unit.
- After injection began, plaintiffs’ adjacent wells began producing large quantities of water, became uneconomic, and suffered physical and economic harm, including reduced oil production and plugging-related costs.
- Plaintiffs alleged injected water migrated from the unit into their wells, and they sued for damages on a private nuisance theory.
- Two district court actions (covering the Spears and Wells leases) were consolidated for jury trial; the jury awarded damages to plaintiffs and the court entered judgment.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the claims were a collateral attack on the Commission’s order, that the order immunized them from tort liability, and that jury instructions and certain defenses were mishandled.

## Issues

1. Whether Commission-authorized, otherwise lawful waterflooding operations can constitute a private nuisance when they substantially damage adjacent wells.
2. Whether a nuisance damages action based on injury from unit operations is an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission’s unitization and injection order.
3. Whether the Commission’s authorization bars or preempts common-law tort liability for damages to neighboring property.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgments for plaintiffs.
- The court held that lawful, Commission-authorized waterflooding may constitute a private nuisance if it causes substantial injury to neighboring property.
- The court held the Commission order did not confer tort immunity on the unit or operator for damages caused to adjacent owners.
- The court held the suits were not a collateral attack because plaintiffs did not seek to invalidate or modify the Commission’s order, but only sought damages from the effects of operations conducted under it.
- The court upheld the jury instructions on nuisance and causation as consistent with Oklahoma law and found sufficient evidence supporting causation and damages.
- The court rejected asserted defenses of consent, estoppel, and assumption of risk as unsupported or legally insufficient on the record.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful use of property may be a nuisance in fact when its conduct or effects unreasonably or substantially interfere with another’s use and enjoyment of property.
- Administrative authorization of oil-and-gas operations does not, by itself, bar common-law nuisance damages claims for injury to neighboring property caused by those operations.
- A damages action is not a collateral attack on an administrative order when the plaintiff accepts the order’s validity and seeks compensation for harms allegedly resulting from implementation of authorized operations.
- Participation in, notice of, or opportunity to participate in regulatory proceedings does not amount to consent to physical invasion or property damage absent clear, affirmative consent.
- Causation and nuisance liability may be supported by evidence linking the onset of damage to the start of injection operations and expert testimony showing migration pathways in the reservoir.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed nuisance-based damages awards to adjacent well owners, holding that Commission-authorized waterflooding can still be actionable as a private nuisance when it substantially harms neighboring property and that such claims neither collaterally attack the Commission’s order nor are barred by regulatory approval.


Boyce v. Dundee Healdton Sand Unit, 560 P.2d 234 (Okla. Civ. App. 1975)