Disputes related to ground water ownership and use are common. Each state has established laws governing ground water use and production. Although these laws can be very complex and vary from one state to another, most of them are developed around three basic ideas:

1) The Absolute Ownership Doctrine gives property owners the right to everything on, below or above their properties. Under this doctrine property owners can produce all of the ground water that they want, in any way they want, wherever they want, and without any regard to the effect upon their neighbors.

2) The Riparian Rights Doctrine gives property owners the right to produce as much water as they want for any beneficial use that is carried out on the property from which the ground water was withdrawn. If this water production causes injury to an adjacent property owner the injured property owner bears all burden of proof.

3) The Prior Appropriation Doctrine is the principle of "first come, first served." Under this doctrine the first person to develop a water resource in an area stakes first claim to the amount of water that is produced for beneficial purposes. Later users are entitled to any remaining resources in the order that they begin production.

A few states have adopted a set of water laws that are a combination of the Riparian Rights and Prior Appropriation Doctrines. A geographic summary of ground water law application is shown by the map below. Alaska uses the Prior Appropriation doctrine and Hawaii has a unique set of ground water laws that gives preference to certain types of ground water use.

How would the dispute of "Smith and Ralston vs. Liston Bottling" be settled under these differing ground water doctrines? How would the dispute of "Jaffray vs. Liston Bottling" be settled? Provide your answers on the worksheet?