Groundwater Exceptionalism: the Disconnect Between Law and Science

• Publication year: 2022

Groundwater Exceptionalism: The Disconnect between Law and Science

Christine A. Klein

GROUNDWATER EXCEPTIONALISM: THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN LAW AND SCIENCE

Christine A. Klein^*

Abstract

Most judges, legislators, and regulators would be hard-pressed to articulate a comprehensive legal theory of groundwater. And yet, this under-appreciated, over-used, life-sustaining resource plays an increasingly pivotal role in prominent legal controversies. In defiance of hydrologic reality, lawmakers have routinely singled out groundwater for unique treatment and decoupled it from surface water. This Article dubs such phenomenon "groundwater exceptionalism," and identifies groundwater as an under-theorized aspect of both property law and water law. It brings to light the numerous legal doctrines infected by exceptionalism, including state water rights law, the federal reserved rights doctrine, the apportionment of interstate waters, and the scope of jurisdiction under the federal Clean Water Act. This Article constructs a typology of the purported justifications for exceptionalism and identifies its two key consequences: the over-propertization and under-regulation of groundwater. It argues that these distortions must be corrected, not solely as a normative matter, but also as essential reforms to bring the law into alignment with science and promote analytical coherence, faithfulness to doctrinal purpose, and sustainable water use. This Article concludes by culling the lessons from over a century and identifying promising analytical tools to move the law from exceptionalism toward integrity. More broadly, this analysis offers a roadmap for integrating law and science in the context of resource management, a challenge that will become increasingly critical in the face of climate change.

[Page 488]

Introduction............................................................................................. 489

I. The Puzzle of Groundwater....................................................... 491

A. Groundwater as Hydrologic Category..................................... 492
B. Groundwater as Legal Construct ............................................. 494
C. Groundwater as Exceptional.................................................... 497

II. The Doctrines: A Typology......................................................... 499

A. State Water Rights Law ............................................................ 502

1. The Law .............................................................................. 503

a. The Riparian Doctrine................................................. 503
b. The Prior Appropriation Doctrine ............................... 505
c. Groundwater Doctrines............................................... 506

2. The Exceptions ................................................................... 508
3. The Rationales.................................................................... 511
4. The Consequences .............................................................. 513

B. Federal Reserved Water Rights ................................................ 515

1. The Law .............................................................................. 516
2. The Exceptions ................................................................... 517

a. Groundwater as Threat ............................................... 518
b. Groundwater as Protected Resource ........................... 518

3. The Rationales .................................................................... 520
4. The Consequences .............................................................. 521

C. Interstate Water Allocation ...................................................... 521

1. The Law .............................................................................. 522
2. The Exceptions ................................................................... 523

a. Interstate Compacts ..................................................... 523
b. Equitable Apportionment ............................................. 526

3. The Rationales .................................................................... 528
4. The Consequences .............................................................. 529

D. The Clean Water Act ................................................................ 531

1. The Law .............................................................................. 532
2. The Exceptions ................................................................... 533

a. Protected Waters—The Scope of "Navigable Waters" 533

i. 1980 & 1982 Rules ............................................... 533
ii. The Obama Administration's Rule........................ 536
iii. The Trump Administration's Rule......................... 538
iv. The Biden Administration's Rule .......................... 539

b. Regulated Actions—The "Discharge of Pollutants" ... 539

3. The Rationales .................................................................... 541
4. The Consequences .............................................................. 543

III. The Way Forward: From Exceptionalism to Integrity......... 545

[Page 489]

A. Rejecting Over-Propertization ................................................. 545
B. Reversing Under-Regulation .................................................... 551

1. State Water Rights Doctrine............................................... 553
2. Federal Reserved Water Rights.......................................... 554
3. Interstate Water Allocation ................................................ 555
4. The Clean Water Act .......................................................... 556

C. Restoring Integrity: A Roadmap............................................... 557

1. Analysis Based on Science and Data.................................. 559
2. Analysis Rooted in Doctrinal Purpose and Functional Connectivity........................................................................ 559
3. Analysis Freed of Fifth Amendment Distractions............... 560

Conclusion................................................................................................. 561

Introduction

[O]ne cannot separate ground water and surface water. What is surface water at one time is ground water the next. What is ground water today becomes surface water tomorrow. Any concept dealing with all water must correlate ground water and surface water.

—Williams v. Wichita (1962)¹

What is groundwater and why should the law care? As a textbook explanation, hydrologists might define groundwater as "water found within the pore spaces beneath the surface of the Earth" and regard it as "an integral part of the hydrologic cycle."² But in the hands of judges and legislators, this simple definition can become tortured beyond all hydrologic recognition. Worse, lawyers have a knack for couching their extra-scientific views in technical sounding jargon seemingly beyond reproach. And perhaps worst of all, the law seems to delight in crafting fine distinctions between groundwater and surface water in defiance of scientists' understanding of the water cycle. In short, groundwater is both a hydrologic category and legal construct, often with no clear alignment of the two.

[Page 490]

This Article uses the phrase "groundwater exceptionalism"³ to describe the law's often unique treatment of groundwater, unmoored from its role in the hydrologic cycle. Why does it matter that the hydrologic and legal understandings of groundwater diverge and that the law distinguishes surface water from groundwater in numerous contexts? Certainly, it is the law's prerogative—and even mandate—to draw fine lines that have important legal consequences. But what if the line-drawing exercise purports to rely on scientific principles, when it in fact departs from them? And what if supporting rationales are mere subterfuge to advance unacknowledged policy goals? In such cases, this Article argues, reliance on pseudo-scientific distinctions between surface water and groundwater skews legal policy and damages the integrity of the law. This is not to say that legal outcomes or policy must necessarily be changed. Instead, this Article argues that when courts and lawmakers except groundwater from rules applicable to surface water, they should do so based on transparent, coherent analysis. Such analysis should be ground-truthed for consistency with hydrologic reality and faithful to the goals of the relevant legal doctrine.

This Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, it brings to light the numerous and divergent legal doctrines that distinguish between surface water and groundwater, showing that each such distinction is part of a broader whole. Second, this Article tackles "groundwater" as an undertheorized legal construct, locating it as a species of water, which itself is a subspecies of property.

Part I sets the stage by exploring both hydrologic and legal understandings of groundwater; it then considers the extent to which the notion of "American exceptionalism" provides a useful analogy to furnish deeper insights into groundwater exceptionalism. Next, Part II identifies legal doctrines that incorporate the surface/groundwater divide, including (1) state water rights law; (2) the federal reserved rights doctrine; (3) federal law governing the allocation of interstate waters; and (4) the federal Clean Water Act. Constructing a typology of exceptionalism across legal doctrines, the analysis unpacks each doctrine's rules, exceptions for groundwater, exclusionary rationales, and the consequences of such groundwater privileging. Finally, Part III charts a path forward, seeking to advance legal integrity through more coordinated and coherent legal treatment of surface water and groundwater.

[Page 491]

Overall, this analysis reveals that exceptionalism produces two key results: the over-propertization and under-regulation of groundwater. As this Article will argue, these...