{"id":233,"date":"2014-09-17T00:42:03","date_gmt":"2014-09-17T00:42:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/buslegalenv\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=233"},"modified":"2015-04-15T21:04:21","modified_gmt":"2015-04-15T21:04:21","slug":"28-2-rights-incident-to-possession-and-ownership-of-real-estate","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/chapter\/28-2-rights-incident-to-possession-and-ownership-of-real-estate\/","title":{"raw":"Rights Incident to Possession and Ownership of Real Estate","rendered":"Rights Incident to Possession and Ownership of Real Estate"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-highlight\">\r\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\nBy the end of this section, you will be able to:\r\n<ul id=\"mayer_1.0-ch52_s02_l01\" class=\"im_orderedlist\">\r\n\t<li>Understand that property owners have certain rights in the airspace above their land, in the minerals beneath their land, and even in water that adjoins their land.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s01\" class=\"im_section\">\r\n<h2 class=\"im_title im_editable im_block\">Rights to Airspace<\/h2>\r\nThe traditional rule was stated by Lord Coke: \u201cWhoever owns the soil owns up to the sky.\u201d This traditional rule remains valid today, but its application can cause problems. A simple example would be a person who builds an extension to the upper story of his house so that it hangs out over the edge of his property line and thrusts into the airspace of his neighbor. That would clearly be an encroachment on the neighbor\u2019s property. But is it trespass when an airplane\u2014or an earth satellite\u2014flies over your backyard? Obviously, the courts must balance the right to travel against landowners\u2019 rights. In <em class=\"im_emphasis\">U.S. v. Causby<\/em>,<span id=\"mayer_1.0-fn33_002\" class=\"im_footnote\"><em class=\"im_emphasis\">U.S. v. Causby<\/em>, 328 U.S. 256 (1946).<\/span> the Court determined that flights over private land may constitute a diminution in the property value if they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of land.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s02\" class=\"im_section\">\r\n<h2 class=\"im_title im_editable im_block\">Rights to the Depths<\/h2>\r\nLord Coke\u2019s dictum applies to the depths as well as the sky. The owner of the surface has the right to the oil, gas, and minerals below it, although this right can be severed and sold separately. Perplexing questions may arise in the case of oil and gas, which can flow under the surface. Some states say that oil and gas can be owned by the owner of the surface land; others say that they are not owned until actually extracted\u2014although the property owner may sell the exclusive right to extract them from his land. But states with either rule recognize that oil and gas are capable of being \u201ccaptured\u201d by drilling that causes oil or gas from under another plot of land to run toward the drilled hole. Since the possibility of capture can lead to wasteful drilling practices as everyone nearby rushes to capture the precious commodities, many states have enacted statutes requiring landowners to share the resources.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s03\" class=\"im_section\">\r\n<h2 class=\"im_title im_editable im_block\">Rights to Water<\/h2>\r\nThe right to determine how bodies of water will be used depends on basic property rules. Two different approaches to water use in the United States\u2014eastern and western\u2014have developed over time (see Figure 28.2 \"Water Rights\"). Eastern states, where water has historically been more plentiful, have adopted the so-called riparian rights theory, which itself can take two forms. <em class=\"im_emphasis\">Riparian<\/em> refers to land that includes a part of the bed of a waterway or that borders on a public watercourse. A riparian owner is one who owns such land. What are the rights of upstream and downstream owners of riparian land regarding use of the waters? One approach is the \u201cnatural flow\u201d doctrine: Each riparian owner is entitled to have the river or other waterway maintained in its natural state. The upstream owner may use the river for drinking water or for washing but may not divert it to irrigate his crops or to operate his mill if doing so would materially change the amount of the flow or the quality of the water. Virtually all eastern states today are not so restrictive and rely instead on a \u201creasonable use\u201d doctrine, which permits the benefit to be derived from use of the waterway to be weighed against the gravity of the harm. This approach is illustrated in <em class=\"im_emphasis\">Hoover v. Crane<\/em>, (see Section 28.6.1 \"Reasonable Use Doctrine\".<span id=\"mayer_1.0-fn33_003\" class=\"im_footnote\"><em class=\"im_emphasis\">Hoover v. Crane<\/em>, 362 Mich. 36, 106 N.W.2d 563 (1960).<\/span>\r\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s03_f01\" class=\"im_figure im_large im_editable im_block\">\r\n\r\n<span class=\"im_title-prefix\">Figure 28.2<\/span> Water Rights\r\n\r\n<a href=\"https:\/\/textimgs.s3.amazonaws.com\/buslegalenv\/section_31\/33944ecb0711441ea80cdd6e2020fac9.jpg\" target=\"_blank\"><img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/140\/2014\/09\/20045952\/sm_33944ecb0711441ea80cdd6e2020fac9.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/><\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nIn contrast to riparian rights doctrines, western states have adopted the prior appropriation doctrine. This rule looks not to equality of interests but to priority in time: first in time is first in right. The first person to use the water for a beneficial purpose has a right superior to latecomers. This rule applies even if the first user takes all the water for his own needs and even if other users are riparian owners. This rule developed in water-scarce states in which development depended on incentives to use rather than hoard water. Today, the prior appropriation doctrine has come under criticism because it gives incentives to those who already have the right to the water to continue to use it profligately, rather than to those who might develop more efficient means of using it.\r\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s03_n01\" class=\"im_key_takeaways im_editable im_block textbox\">\r\n<h3 class=\"im_title\">Key Takeaway<\/h3>\r\nProperty owners have certain rights in the airspace above their land. They also have rights in subsurface minerals, which include oil and gas. Those property owners who have bodies of water adjacent to their land will also have certain rights to withdraw or impound water for their own use. Regarding US water law, the reasonable use doctrine in the eastern states is distinctly different from the prior appropriation doctrine in western states.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-info\">\r\n<h3>Exercises<\/h3>\r\n<section id=\"self-check-questions\">\r\n<ol>\r\n\t<li>Steve Hannaford farms in western Nebraska. The farm has passed to succeeding generations of Hannafords, who use water from the North Platte River for irrigation purposes. The headlands of the North Platte are in Colorado, but use of the water from the North Platte by Nebraskans preceded use of the water by settlers in Colorado. What theory of water rights governs Nebraska and Colorado residents? Can the state of Colorado divert and use water in such a way that less of it reaches western Nebraska and the Hannaford farm? Why or why not?<\/li>\r\n\t<li>Jamie Stoner decides to put solar panels on the south face of his roof. Jamie lives on a block of one- and two-bedroom bungalows in South Miami, Florida. In 2009, someone purchases the house next door and within two years decides to add a second and third story. This proposed addition will significantly decrease the utility of Jamie\u2019s solar array. Does Jamie have any rights that would limit what his new neighbors can do on their own land?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/section><\/div>\r\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch52_s02_s06_n02\" class=\"im_exercises im_editable im_block\"><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n","rendered":"<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-highlight\">\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n<p>By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"mayer_1.0-ch52_s02_l01\" class=\"im_orderedlist\">\n<li>Understand that property owners have certain rights in the airspace above their land, in the minerals beneath their land, and even in water that adjoins their land.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s01\" class=\"im_section\">\n<h2 class=\"im_title im_editable im_block\">Rights to Airspace<\/h2>\n<p>The traditional rule was stated by Lord Coke: \u201cWhoever owns the soil owns up to the sky.\u201d This traditional rule remains valid today, but its application can cause problems. A simple example would be a person who builds an extension to the upper story of his house so that it hangs out over the edge of his property line and thrusts into the airspace of his neighbor. That would clearly be an encroachment on the neighbor\u2019s property. But is it trespass when an airplane\u2014or an earth satellite\u2014flies over your backyard? Obviously, the courts must balance the right to travel against landowners\u2019 rights. In <em class=\"im_emphasis\">U.S. v. Causby<\/em>,<span id=\"mayer_1.0-fn33_002\" class=\"im_footnote\"><em class=\"im_emphasis\">U.S. v. Causby<\/em>, 328 U.S. 256 (1946).<\/span> the Court determined that flights over private land may constitute a diminution in the property value if they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of land.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s02\" class=\"im_section\">\n<h2 class=\"im_title im_editable im_block\">Rights to the Depths<\/h2>\n<p>Lord Coke\u2019s dictum applies to the depths as well as the sky. The owner of the surface has the right to the oil, gas, and minerals below it, although this right can be severed and sold separately. Perplexing questions may arise in the case of oil and gas, which can flow under the surface. Some states say that oil and gas can be owned by the owner of the surface land; others say that they are not owned until actually extracted\u2014although the property owner may sell the exclusive right to extract them from his land. But states with either rule recognize that oil and gas are capable of being \u201ccaptured\u201d by drilling that causes oil or gas from under another plot of land to run toward the drilled hole. Since the possibility of capture can lead to wasteful drilling practices as everyone nearby rushes to capture the precious commodities, many states have enacted statutes requiring landowners to share the resources.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s03\" class=\"im_section\">\n<h2 class=\"im_title im_editable im_block\">Rights to Water<\/h2>\n<p>The right to determine how bodies of water will be used depends on basic property rules. Two different approaches to water use in the United States\u2014eastern and western\u2014have developed over time (see Figure 28.2 &#8220;Water Rights&#8221;). Eastern states, where water has historically been more plentiful, have adopted the so-called riparian rights theory, which itself can take two forms. <em class=\"im_emphasis\">Riparian<\/em> refers to land that includes a part of the bed of a waterway or that borders on a public watercourse. A riparian owner is one who owns such land. What are the rights of upstream and downstream owners of riparian land regarding use of the waters? One approach is the \u201cnatural flow\u201d doctrine: Each riparian owner is entitled to have the river or other waterway maintained in its natural state. The upstream owner may use the river for drinking water or for washing but may not divert it to irrigate his crops or to operate his mill if doing so would materially change the amount of the flow or the quality of the water. Virtually all eastern states today are not so restrictive and rely instead on a \u201creasonable use\u201d doctrine, which permits the benefit to be derived from use of the waterway to be weighed against the gravity of the harm. This approach is illustrated in <em class=\"im_emphasis\">Hoover v. Crane<\/em>, (see Section 28.6.1 &#8220;Reasonable Use Doctrine&#8221;.<span id=\"mayer_1.0-fn33_003\" class=\"im_footnote\"><em class=\"im_emphasis\">Hoover v. Crane<\/em>, 362 Mich. 36, 106 N.W.2d 563 (1960).<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s03_f01\" class=\"im_figure im_large im_editable im_block\">\n<p><span class=\"im_title-prefix\">Figure 28.2<\/span> Water Rights<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/textimgs.s3.amazonaws.com\/buslegalenv\/section_31\/33944ecb0711441ea80cdd6e2020fac9.jpg\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/140\/2014\/09\/20045952\/sm_33944ecb0711441ea80cdd6e2020fac9.jpg\" alt=\"\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>In contrast to riparian rights doctrines, western states have adopted the prior appropriation doctrine. This rule looks not to equality of interests but to priority in time: first in time is first in right. The first person to use the water for a beneficial purpose has a right superior to latecomers. This rule applies even if the first user takes all the water for his own needs and even if other users are riparian owners. This rule developed in water-scarce states in which development depended on incentives to use rather than hoard water. Today, the prior appropriation doctrine has come under criticism because it gives incentives to those who already have the right to the water to continue to use it profligately, rather than to those who might develop more efficient means of using it.<\/p>\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch33_s02_s03_n01\" class=\"im_key_takeaways im_editable im_block textbox\">\n<h3 class=\"im_title\">Key Takeaway<\/h3>\n<p>Property owners have certain rights in the airspace above their land. They also have rights in subsurface minerals, which include oil and gas. Those property owners who have bodies of water adjacent to their land will also have certain rights to withdraw or impound water for their own use. Regarding US water law, the reasonable use doctrine in the eastern states is distinctly different from the prior appropriation doctrine in western states.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"bcc-box bcc-info\">\n<h3>Exercises<\/h3>\n<section id=\"self-check-questions\">\n<ol>\n<li>Steve Hannaford farms in western Nebraska. The farm has passed to succeeding generations of Hannafords, who use water from the North Platte River for irrigation purposes. The headlands of the North Platte are in Colorado, but use of the water from the North Platte by Nebraskans preceded use of the water by settlers in Colorado. What theory of water rights governs Nebraska and Colorado residents? Can the state of Colorado divert and use water in such a way that less of it reaches western Nebraska and the Hannaford farm? Why or why not?<\/li>\n<li>Jamie Stoner decides to put solar panels on the south face of his roof. Jamie lives on a block of one- and two-bedroom bungalows in South Miami, Florida. In 2009, someone purchases the house next door and within two years decides to add a second and third story. This proposed addition will significantly decrease the utility of Jamie\u2019s solar array. Does Jamie have any rights that would limit what his new neighbors can do on their own land?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"mayer_1.0-ch52_s02_s06_n02\" class=\"im_exercises im_editable im_block\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-233\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>Business and the Legal Environment. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Anonymous. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Anonymous. <strong>Located at<\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/2012books.lardbucket.org\/books\/business-and-the-legal-environment\/\">http:\/\/2012books.lardbucket.org\/books\/business-and-the-legal-environment\/<\/a>. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/4.0\/\">CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section>","protected":false},"author":5,"menu_order":190,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"cc\",\"description\":\"Business and the Legal Environment\",\"author\":\"Anonymous\",\"organization\":\"Anonymous\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/2012books.lardbucket.org\/books\/business-and-the-legal-environment\/\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by-nc-sa\",\"license_terms\":\"\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-233","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":753,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/233\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":875,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/233\/revisions\/875"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/753"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/233\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=233"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=233"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/clinton-buslegalenv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}