## Facts

- Twenty-six landowners in Jackson Township, Ohio, relied on domestic wells drawing from a shared underground aquifer.
- American Aggregates Corporation operated a limestone quarry in the same area.
- Beginning around 1971, the quarry pumped groundwater from its pits to enable limestone extraction (“dewatering”).
- The pumping allegedly lowered artesian pressure and the water table in the aquifer underlying plaintiffs’ properties.
- Plaintiffs claimed the pumping unreasonably caused their wells to run dry and become polluted, damaging their water supply and property.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the quarry operator under an older Ohio rule that allowed essentially unrestricted withdrawal of percolating groundwater.
- The court of appeals affirmed but suggested Ohio groundwater common law should be reconsidered.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio should retain the common-law “absolute use” rule for percolating groundwater withdrawals that immunized a landowner from liability to neighbors.
2. Whether Ohio should adopt a reasonable-use rule recognizing liability when groundwater withdrawal unreasonably interferes with neighboring owners’ use of the shared supply.
3. Whether summary judgment for the quarry operator could stand under the proper groundwater standard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the prior “absolute use” rule and overruled the governing precedent and its progeny.
- The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 858 as Ohio common law governing groundwater withdrawal.
- The court reversed the judgment affirming summary judgment for the defendant.
- The case was remanded for application of the reasonable-use standard to determine whether the quarry’s pumping created actionable harm.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner who withdraws groundwater for a beneficial purpose is not liable to others for interference unless one of the Restatement § 858 conditions is satisfied.
- Liability may arise if the withdrawal unreasonably causes harm to neighboring landowners by lowering the water table or reducing artesian pressure.
- Liability may arise if the withdrawal exceeds the withdrawing landowner’s reasonable share of the annual supply or total groundwater store.
- Liability may arise if the withdrawal has a direct and substantial effect on a watercourse or lake and unreasonably harms a person entitled to use that surface water.
- The reasonable-use approach rests on improved scientific ability to prove cause-and-effect between pumping and neighboring well impacts and is intended to balance beneficial use against correlative rights.

## Conclusion

Ohio groundwater law shifted from near-absolute withdrawal rights to a reasonable-use regime under Restatement § 858, allowing neighboring landowners to seek relief when pumping unreasonably harms their wells, exceeds a reasonable share of the supply, or unreasonably harms connected surface waters, requiring further factfinding on remand.


Cline v. Am. Aggregates Corp., 474 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio 1984)