Friendswood Development Company v. Smith-Southwest Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas · 1977 · Property

576 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. 1978)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertygroundwatersubsidencerule of capturestare decisispercolating groundwaterabsolute ownershipEnglish rule

Facts

Plaintiffs owned land in the Seabrook and Clear Lake area of Harris County and alleged that defendants' withdrawals of large quantities of underground water from wells on defendants' nearby land caused subsidence, erosion, flooding, and damage to improvements on plaintiffs' property. Friendswood drilled wells from 1964 through 1971 and pumped water primarily for sale to industrial users, despite engineering reports showing that production would result in some land subsidence. Plaintiffs alleged negligent well spacing, excessive production, and continuing nuisance, and they offered summary judgment proof that defendants knew their pumping would severely aggravate subsidence. Defendants responded that subsidence was already a known regional problem and that many other well owners in Harris and Galveston Counties caused or contributed to it.

Issue

Whether landowners who withdraw percolating groundwater from wells on their own land are liable in nuisance or negligence for subsidence occurring on neighboring lands. Also, whether Texas should continue applying the existing common law rule to past withdrawals or adopt a different rule for the future.

Rule

For past groundwater withdrawals, Texas applies the common law rule that a landowner may withdraw percolating groundwater from his own land without liability for resulting damage to neighboring land, absent willful waste or malicious injury. Prospectively, if a landowner's manner of withdrawing groundwater is negligent, willfully wasteful, or for the purpose of malicious injury, and that conduct proximately causes subsidence of another's land, the landowner is liable; the negligence ground applies only to future subsidence proximately caused by future withdrawals from wells negligently drilled or produced after the opinion becomes final.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 1974, Red Mesa Utilities drilled several water wells on its own land outside Corpus Christi and pumped heavily to supply nearby factories. Owners of adjacent parcels later proved that the pumping contributed to subsidence and tidal flooding on their land, and they sued in negligence and private nuisance, alleging careless well spacing and overproduction but no malice or willful waste.

Under the governing rule, are the neighboring owners most likely to recover damages?

Explanation. The majority held that, as to past conduct, Texas adhered to the common-law absolute ownership rule for percolating groundwater. Under that rule, a landowner could withdraw groundwater from wells on his own land without liability for resulting subsidence to neighboring land unless the conduct involved willful waste or malicious injury. Because negligence and nuisance theories depended on a legal duty or unlawful invasion that the old rule did not recognize, the harm was damnum absque injuria for past withdrawals.