Tweedy v. Texas Company, Civ. No. 2738.
Decision Date | 14 June 1968 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 2738. |
Citation | 286 F. Supp. 383 |
Parties | Lottie E. TWEEDY and Samuel E. Tweedy, Plaintiffs, v. The TEXAS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, a/k/a Texaco, Inc., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson & Gallagher, Billings, Mont., for plaintiffs.
Patrick L. Donovan and John F. Bayuk, Shelby, Mont., for defendant.
In this diversity case removed from the state court plaintiffs, citizens of Montana, seek damages in the amount of $222,182.00 from the defendant, a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices in New York. The gist of plaintiffs' complaint is that the defendant took 444,374 barrels of underground water belonging to the plaintiffs. The parties submitted the case for decision upon an agreed statement of facts.
On July 1, 1937, the Aronsons, the then owners of the land described in the complaint, all of which is located within the exterior boundaries of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, granted to the defendant an oil and gas lease. The lease was recorded in October, 1937. It provided, in part, as follows:
On May 15, 1951, the then fee owners of the land executed a "Surface Rights Deed" in which the plaintiffs were the grantees. That deed provided, in part, as follows:
On March 1, 1963, the oil and gas lease was modified by the execution of a unitization agreement to which plaintiffs were not parties. That agreement pooled the land described in separate leases and laid the legal foundations for a secondary recovery program. That program contemplated the injection of fluid, under pressure, into the oil bearing formations and the recovery of quantities of oil and gas which would not normally be recovered by merely pumping the individual wells. Secondary recovery programs do conserve natural resources,1 and the unitization agreements necessary in many cases to such programs are authorized by statute in Montana.2 The unitization agreement here involved was approved after a hearing before the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission of the State of Montana on April 9, 1964.3
Since that time the defendant has used the underground water drawn from wells drilled upon the land described in the complaint for the pressurization of the area described in the unitization agreement which, as indicated, is larger than the area described in the lease. Plaintiffs seek damages at the rate of fifty cents per barrel for all of the water so used and base their claim entirely upon an ownership of the water existing as incident to the ownership of their land.
Plaintiffs' case fails because plaintiffs cannot establish any title in the water as such, and there is no evidence and no claim that defendant has interfered with the plaintiffs' right to use water in the satisfaction of any need for it.4
When the Blackfeet Indian Reservation was created, the waters of the reservation were reserved for the benefit of the reservation lands. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). The Winters case dealt only with the surface water, but the same implications which led the Supreme Court to hold that surface waters had been reserved would apply to underground waters as well. The land was arid—water would make it more useful, and whether the waters were found on the surface of the land or under it should make no difference.
The waters being reserved are governed by federal rather than state law. United States v. McIntire, 101 F.2d 650 (9 Cir. 1939). This is so even after the trust patents are issued and lands have passed out of Indian ownership. It is necessary therefore to determine the governing Federal law. The one dominant concept which emerged from the development of the water law in the West was that all rights are in the use of the water rather than in the ownership of its corpus.
The needs of the West required that the common law doctrine of riparian rights give way to the prior appropriation doctrine; the central thesis of that doctrine being that the use of water created the right to its use—a right to use it to satisfy a need and nothing more.5 True, the Montana doctrine of prior appropriation has been specifically rejected as the governing law on Indian reservations, but the Montana law developed, as did the law in all of the western states, in response to the needs of the land. Nothing in the Congressional language suggests that the federal law should develop differently...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, In re
...of surface water to fulfill the purpose of the reservation also supports reservation of groundwater. See Tweedy v. Texas Company, 286 F.Supp. 383, 385 (D.Mont.1968) ("whether the [necessary] waters were found on the surface of the land or under it should make no difference"). Certainly the ......
-
In re Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River
...of surface water to fulfill the purpose of the reservation also supports reservation of groundwater. See Tweedy v. Texas Company, 286 F. Supp. 383, 385 (D.Mont. 1968) ("whether the [necessary] waters were found on the surface of the land or under it should make no difference"). Certainly th......
-
In re Gila River System and Source
...6. Some recorded decisions have, in fact, addressed the question, though their analysis was relatively terse. See Tweedy v. Texas Co., 286 F.Supp. 383, 385 (D.Mont.1968) ("the same implications" that support a reservation of surface waters in arid lands "would apply to underground waters as......
-
Wirtz v. Old Dominion Corporation
... ... Civ. A. No. 4583 ... United States District Court E. D ... 1967); Mitchell v. Empire Gas Engineering Company, 256 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1958); Wirtz v. First State ... ...
-
Groundwater Exceptionalism: the Disconnect Between Law and Science
...state agency from issuing competing water use permits until tribes' reserved rights have been quantified); see also Tweedy v. Tex. Co., 286 F. Supp. 383, 385 (D. Mont. 1968) (opining that "whether the waters were found on the surface of land or under it should make no difference" to the res......