Ohio's Secret Substancea

Abstract

AbstractOhio is a good example of a dynamic state, ranking third of all the states in the nation in value added by manufacture; first in the amount of water used by industry; twelfth in cash receipts from agriculture; and fifth in population. With all of this activity the state still relies largely upon a common law system of water rights. The Frazier vs. Browndecision of 1861 held that despite the fact that a hole Jacob Brown dug on his property caused his neighbor's spring to stop flowing, the loss gave rise to no legal action. The court based its decision on older cases where this was the rule for two main reasons: the movement of ground water is secret, and legal restriction would inhibit the development of the state. Considering the costly process of determining the behavior of ground water, to the ordinary landowner, it is still “secret and occult.” Further, abandoning the simple rule of wide‐open development in a state as well‐developed as Ohio would call for an administrative agency.The Ohio Water Commission, in 1960, presented a proposed bill to create “watershed districts” which could manage new uses of ground water. Agriculture and municipal advisory councils expressed concern that there were no ground‐water laws. The industrial advisory council, however, was vigorously opposed to any change in the present water rights laws of Ohio. The bill was unsuccessful.The common law rule in Ohio, though admittedly primitive, still works. The time will come, however, when Ohio will enact a water law. Already one situation has officially placed the handwriting on the wall. When that time comes, the decision will be made insofar as possible by principles of the private free enterprise competitive economy. The theory will be that you can have additional water if you can pay the price. Ohio's state agencies are already looking to artificial recharge, rather than restriction. Agriculture may need some special protection, because it is so vulnerable.