Water/Land--legal question....

[dukluk]

When two people have undivided interest ownership in a piece of property, including a fishing pond, is it legal for one owner to remove water from the pond for irrigation, without getting permission from the other owner ???

In this case, the first owner, "supposedly", pumped well-water back into the pond to replace the irrigation water that was pumped out....however, the pond was pumped down so low, that the water turned stagnant, and moss and algae took over the entire pond, and it became unfishable.

The reason for this exchange of water was to prevent cold-water areas to a crop....the pond water is warm, but the well-water is cold, and detrimental to summer crops.

Regardless, the second owner was completely stunned that this had been going on for a couple of years, until trying to take kids fishing there.

[Wingman]

Never heard of the cold water thing hurting crops. I'm not saying it is false, but I've never heard of it. Look at all of the wells running in the Delta. Maybe if you had the option, warmer water would be better, but they're making 60 bushel beans and 240 bushel corn on well water all the time.

[SWAG]

Cold water rice....effects a small area but yes you do have those spots. What was the intended use of the pond to begin with?

[SHANE704]

this right here is why you dont do undivided interest stuff....

[dukluk]

[dukluk]

[JaMak84]

They both own it. Owner A wants to use the pond for irrigation and owner B wants it for recreation. regardless of who's been maintaining it there's only 2 ways to solve it. A.) Ole fashioned dust up where the whooper tells the whoopee how it's gonna be or B.) get a lawyer and divide the $#!+ up. It'd look into option B before the next generation got involved.

[DoublePslayer]

[the doctor]

Was the farmers water on the top of the pond or the bottom?

the doc

[Hambone]

Both owners have equal rights to use the property, subject to a duty not to commit waste. This is a strange case, as most disputes between co-owners arise when one cuts timber or rents the land to a third party without permission of the other. From a pure legal standpoint, if the lake is a major asset of the property and the removal/replacement of the water really did destroy the fishing, then the fishing owner does have some sort of claim against the irrigating owner. The best thing to do would be for one owner to buy the other out voluntarily, as the other option would be a partition (forced sale or physical division) through Chancery Court.

[novacaine]

Ive always liked the Rodney King approach........."Can't we all just get along"!

I farmer is worried about cold water irrigation and fisherman is worried about drawdown and water quality.
You could just keep the well running into the pond and let farmer man pump out and constantly put a semi warm water onto his crops. He is obviously using some type of pump to pull the warm water out of the pond. Its a compromise that won't necessarily make both parties happy.

On another note........if the well is over a 4" well, then is a permitted well with MDEQ. Wells have limits and beneficial uses listed on the permit. Irrigation wells are for irrigation, recreation/pond wells are for recreation. I'm not aware of dual use well allowances, but i could be wrong...........
Fisherman may want to run down that rabbit just in case compromise can't be reached.