Water rights under the land you own.

[Senegoid]

In today’s (well, tomorrow’s, 3/20/2015) column, How far down do property lines go?, Cecil discusses the legal landscape of resource extraction, including the “rule of capture” regarding pumping of oil from a vertical well:

@Cecil

Subterranean property rights also vary depending on what you’re trying to get at down there. Oil, flowing where it will, is governed in the U.S. under the “rule of capture,” as admirers of Daniel Day-Lewis may remember: anything you can produce from a vertically drilled well on your property is yours, even if it comes from underneath your neighbor’s land. Mineral deposits are generally assumed to belong to the surface owner (unless the mineral rights have been sold separately)

Strangely, Cecil doesn’t mention a word about the similar, and sometimes controversial, legal landscape of pumping groundwater which, like oil, flows where it will. This too tends to accumulate in large underground aquifers, and is often reasonably considered a common resource not belonging to any individual property owner.

I think the rules tend to be different in different places. In rural areas, wells on private property are typical. (Where else are they going to get their water?) In more populated areas, pumping private water is much more regulated and restricted, often controversially. In some areas, even the rainwater that falls on your land is (also controversially) considered a public resource! (Who Owns the Rain? Hint: It’s Not Always Homeowners, Andrew Moseman, Popular Mechanics, 12/17/2009.)

Cecil also makes brief mention of mineral rights. AFAIK, typical homes in typical residential developments do not include mineral rights to any rocks under the land. (So who does own those rights?) It has always been my impression that “water” is deemed to be a “mineral” for this purpose, and thus doesn’t belong to the property owner.

In related news, it seems like it’s just good planning that all homeowners should also own their own little private plot of heaven and hell. Unpropertied souls would presumably have to rent space from propertied souls, and propertied souls would have one or the other of their extra-worldly plots available to rent out, whichever one they weren’t occupying themselves.

[squidfood]

AFAIK, typical homes in typical residential developments do not include mineral rights to any rocks under the land. (So who does own those rights?)

Often, they were originally associated with the land, but a seller at some point sold the land specifically retaining mineral rights (then selling those to an extraction company).

Much of the L.A. shore basin sits on a pool of oil. My own house was sold without mineral rights in the 30’s sometime so we bought it without the rights. I have a neighbor, though, where the seller had leased the oil rights to a company, and transferred the rights and lease to my neighbor when she bought. For 30 years, she’s gotten a check for several hundred every year from the oil company.

[drewder]

@squidfood

Often, they were originally associated with the land, but a seller at some point sold the land specifically retaining mineral rights (then selling those to an extraction company).

Much of the L.A. shore basin sits on a pool of oil. My own house was sold without mineral rights in the 30’s sometime so we bought it without the rights. I have a neighbor, though, where the seller had leased the oil rights to a company, and transferred the rights and lease to my neighbor when she bought. For 30 years, she’s gotten a check for several hundred every year from the oil company.

Interestingly enough it’s my understanding that the united states is the only country in the world in which private citizens can own mineral rights.

[Melbourne]

In AUS, the whole place was claimed for the Crown. When they sold off or gave away the freehold rights, the government retained mineral rights.

In my own town, Modern Title (1862) only extends down 15 meters. Old common law titles extend ?all the way down? I don’t know what would happen if an old-title allotment was converted to Torrens (modern) title. It could simple be marked on the Torens title, but I don’t think that happens: perhaps the government aquires the depth rights if the title is converted.