Who Owes Whom?

When the aquifer is full and the springs are filling the river, everyone is happy and all is well.  But, as the aquifer goes down, certain people lose their access to water.  In this example, the surface users gaining their water from Spring 1 will lose their access to water first.  Then, well owner A will need to lower his well to shale.  Well C will next lose his access to water, followed by the surface users reliant on Spring 2.  Well A, if lowered to shale, will lose access to water last. 

The question is, what obligation does each of the water users have to each other?  Do the people with wells have an obligation to the surface users who are reliant upon the springs?  If so, how long does this obligation last?

The aquifer water in pools 1, 2, and 3 contribute to the spring flow until the water table falls below the Spring 2 surface opening.  Once the aquifer drops below this separating boundary, none of the water in pools contributes to the stream.

According to some court rulings, the wells that contributed to the decline of the aquifer owe damages to the surface users. 

If Well D is drilled into Pool 3 after the aquifer falls below the Spring 2 opening, is Well D contributing to the decline of the stream?  The answer is “no,” but Well D would help slow or stop any recharge of the aquifer that might eventually cause the springs to begin to flow again. What are Well D’s rights and obligations?

Do the surface users have a right to force anyone tapping the aquifer to provide them with cash or a portion of that water, if their normal source of water is not available?  Since the owner of Well D used to be a surface water user, does his drilling a well change his status and cause him to have an obligation to surface water users?  Since he had to drill a well in order to reach water, do well owners A, B, and C owe him for the cost of drilling the well?  If so, then do well owners B, C, and D need to compensate well owner A for the cost of making his well deeper in order to reach water?

Does the surface user have the right to force the aquifer to remain full so as to prohibit any ill effect on the springs?

If the surface user has priority rights that obligate the well owner to compensate for effects on the stream, then shouldn’t Well Owner C have similar rights?

If the surface user and the well owner who lose access to water have claims against those still having access to water, then eventually no one will be able to use any of the water -- even though much of the water will remain in the aquifer.

The point where the water user cannot afford to compensate all of the users that have a claim on the water will be when usage of the aquifer will cease.  Because the farmer’s operating margin is thin, the ability to compensate all people losing access to water will quickly become impossible.  This will happen soon and while the aquifer has a large amount of water remaining in it.

Obviously, as soon as you make water rights communal, it becomes a tangled web.  Communal, in this sense, means that everyone owns the water and any benefit gained from the use of that water is the property of everyone.  Soon, everyone owes everyone for everything.  The only way to keep the jumbled mess from overwhelming the court system is to make each person responsible for living within a limit that society decides is fair to all.  Some will run out of water before others because they live in the wrong place.  But, to make everyone responsible for everyone else’s shortage or lack will create a communistic society where nothing works and little irrigation takes place.