## Facts

- Judy Martin owned farm property overlying a groundwater aquifer shared with adjacent land.
- The City of Linden’s municipal water supply was contaminated with saltwater, and the City was purchasing water from another city.
- In 1983, Linden bought a one-acre tract adjacent to Martin’s farm for the sole purpose of drilling a deep-water well.
- The City planned to pump groundwater from the tract at about 700 gallons per minute (about 500,000 gallons per day) and transport it roughly 15 miles by pipeline to the City for general municipal use, including resale.
- Martin alleged the proposed pumping and off-tract transport would deplete or permanently damage the shared aquifer and interfere with her present and future water use.
- Martin sued to enjoin drilling and operation of the well; the trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding the suit precluded by earlier litigation involving other landowners or, alternatively, premature absent actual harm.

## Issues

1. Whether Martin’s action was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel based on prior litigation involving the City’s proposed well.
2. Whether, under Alabama’s reasonable-use doctrine for groundwater, the City could pump large quantities from land it owned and export the water off-tract for municipal distribution and resale.
3. Whether Martin had to wait for actual damage to her water supply before seeking injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for the City and remanded.
- The Court held the action was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because Martin was not a party to the earlier case and had not had an opportunity to litigate her own claims.
- The Court held the City’s proposed off-tract municipal pumping and export of groundwater was impermissible under Alabama’s reasonable-use doctrine.
- The Court held the trial court erred by requiring Martin to show actual damage before she could seek an injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Claim and issue preclusion generally require, among other elements, sufficient identity of parties and a prior opportunity for the present plaintiff to litigate the relevant issues; a nonparty landowner with distinct property interests is not automatically bound by prior litigation involving similar conduct.
- Under Alabama’s reasonable-use doctrine for groundwater, an overlying owner’s withdrawals must be reasonable in relation to correlative rights in a common aquifer and are generally assessed more favorably when tied to beneficial use on the land from which the water is taken.
- Large-scale withdrawal of groundwater for off-tract export for general municipal use and resale may be unreasonable and impermissible when it threatens material interference with neighboring overlying owners’ use of the shared aquifer.
- A plaintiff may seek injunctive relief against an allegedly unlawful and threatened interference with groundwater rights without waiting for completed pumping and realized damage where the threatened harm may be substantial and difficult to remedy after the fact.

## Conclusion

The court held that Martin’s suit was not precluded by earlier litigation and that Linden’s planned extraction and off-tract export of groundwater for municipal supply and resale violated Alabama’s reasonable-use limits; Martin could pursue injunctive relief without first proving actual depletion or damage.


Martin v. City of Linden, 667 So. 2d 732 (Ala. 1995)