A Critic on the Legal Framework of Ownership Rights Over Underground Water Resources

IPEM Journal Law > A Critic on the Legal Framework of Ownership Rights Over Underground Water Resources

A Critic on the Legal Framework of Ownership Rights Over Underground Water Resources

Ms. Sahithi Mithra

Vol 6 , Issue 1 , December 2022 | Pages: 67-74

DOI: 10.61691/IPEM_Law.6.2022.67.74

Published Online: December, 2022

Download Article

Author Details

1. Ms. Sahithi Mithra, Student, School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru

In the recent times, there have been a lot of debates and discussions regarding the ownership rights over underground water as it can be neither private nor public property. In India, there is no central water law on conserving the underground water resources, rather, as per the legal framework the allocation of land which in turn given the issue of groundwater management a strong property focus. Through this it can be derived that although the "owner" is given various rights, the state retains control over the topmost strand of the bundle. Due to the absence of explicit ownership rights, there is no clear rights or liabilities imposed neither on individuals nor on state. It is rising numerous concerns of unequitable access and mismanagement of the groundwater resources. Moreover, not protecting the landowner against unreasonable usage of ground water which is leading to non-sustainable approach. This paper aims to analyse the existing legal and policy framework revolving around the land ownership and authority in control of groundwater as a property and provides the reader with a critical perspective on the current regime and a way forward. Further, this paper also focuses on the United States legislations and compare with Indian legal regime in respect to property and ownership rights on groundwater resources.

Keywords

ownership rights, underground water resource, private and public property, legal framework, nonsustainable approach.
  1. Aguilar, Daniel. "Groundwater Reform in India: An Equity and Sustainability Dilemma." Texas International Law Journal, vol. 46, no. 3, Summer 2011, pp. 623-654.
  2. Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, 925 S.W.2d 618, 625 (Tex. 1996). City of Corpus Christi v. City of Pleasanton, 271 S.W.2d 503, 505-06.
  3. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, 268 S.W.3d 1, 11 n.30 (Tex. 2008).
  4. FPL Farming Ltd. v. Envtl. Processing Sys., L.C., 351 S.W.3d 3o6, 314 (Tex. 2011)
  5. Friendswood Development Co. v. Smith-Southwest Industries, Inc., 6576 S.W.2d 21, 28-29 (Tex. 1978).
  6. Houston & Tex. Cent. Ry. Co. v. East, 81 S.W. 279, 280-81 (Tex. 1904)
  7. Morris, B., Litvak, R., & Ahmed, K. (n.d.). URBAN GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT: LESSONS FROM 2 DEVELOPING CITY CASE STUDIES IN BANGLADESH AND KYRGHYZSTAN. Assests Publishing Service. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d5fed915d3cfd0019b8/R7134V.pdf
  8. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983).
  9. P S Vijay Shankar, Himanshu Kulkarni and Suderrajan Krishnan, India's Groundwater Challenge and the Way Forward, Economic and Political Weekly, JANUARY 8-14, 2011, Vol. 46, No. 2 (JANUARY 8-14, 2011), pp. 37-45.
  10. Sarkar, Amrita. "Economic Implications of Groundwater Markets in India." Nirma University Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, July 2014, pp. 49-64.
  11. Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of Am., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tex. 1999).
  12. Texas Co. v. Burkett, 117 Tex. 16, 296 S.W. 273, 274 (1923).
  13. The Texas Constitution Article 16. General Provisions. (n.d.). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.16.htm
  14. Torres, G. (n.d.). Liquid Assets: Groundwater in Texas. Torres, G. (n.d.). Liquid Assets: Groundwater in Texas. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/liquid-assets-groundwater-in-texas
  15. United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 260-61 (1946).

Mithra. (December,2022). A Critic on the Legal Framework of Ownership Rights Over Underground Water Resources. IPEM LAW JOURNAL, 6, 66-73.