## Facts

- Horseshoe Lake was a privately owned, non-navigable lake in Arkansas.
- Riparian landowners leased shoreline property to Theo Mashburn, who invested in and operated a commercial boating and fishing business on the lake beginning in spring 1954.
- John Brooks and John Brooks, Jr., rice farmers leasing adjacent land, pumped lake water for irrigation from late May to late August 1954.
- The lake level dropped materially during the pumping period; evidence showed that when the elevation fell below 189.67 feet above sea level, water receded from Mashburn’s shoreline to the point that he could not operate boat rentals from his dock.
- Appellants alleged the pumping made the lake unsuitable for fishing, recreation, and related lawful uses; appellees asserted the decline was largely due to drought and that their pumping was consistent with prior years.
- Appellants sought an injunction in chancery court to stop irrigation pumping; the chancellor denied injunctive relief after an evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. What doctrine governs competing riparian uses of a privately owned, non-navigable lake: natural-flow or reasonable-use?
2. Under the governing doctrine, when does irrigation pumping become an unreasonable interference with another riparian owner’s non-domestic use warranting an injunction?

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court adopted the reasonable-use doctrine for riparian rights involving non-domestic uses.
- The court held that domestic uses are superior, but other lawful non-domestic uses (including irrigation, fishing, and recreation) are generally coequal.
- The court concluded irrigation pumping could continue when the lake level was above 189.67 feet, but became unreasonable and enjoinable once the level reached or fell below 189.67 feet because it effectively eliminated Mashburn’s ability to conduct his boating business.
- The court reversed the denial of relief in part and directed entry of an injunction prohibiting pumping when the lake’s elevation reached or fell below 189.67 feet above sea level.

## Legal Principles

- Arkansas recognizes the reasonable-use doctrine for riparian withdrawals: water may be beneficially used so long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to other riparian owners.
- Strictly domestic uses (e.g., household needs) have priority over other uses.
- Apart from domestic use, lawful riparian uses are generally equal; no non-domestic use is inherently superior.
- If one lawful use destroys another lawful use, the destructive use must yield and may be enjoined.
- If one lawful use merely interferes with another, courts must assess reasonableness under all facts and circumstances and may craft an equitable adjustment rather than impose an all-or-nothing prohibition.

## Conclusion

The court aligned Arkansas riparian law with a reasonable-use approach, permitting irrigation withdrawals from a private, non-navigable lake unless they unreasonably impair other coequal non-domestic uses, and it ordered a conditional injunction pegged to a specific water level at which the recreational/commercial use was effectively eliminated.


Harris v. Brooks, 225 Ark. 436, 283 S.W.2d 129 (Ark. 1955)