In the case of Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel (2012), farmers argued that
A) the rights to the water in the aquifer were beyond the reach of the federal government because of long-standing precedent dating back to Mexican common law.
B) they had the rights to the water based upon their ownership of the land above it.
C) they had water rights because they have prior claim pursuant to Texas sovereignty under federalism.
D) they had water rights based on the eminent domain doctrine of the federal Constitution.
E) unless water is in a sealed container aboveground, no one can own it.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The farmers argued that they had the rights to the water based on their ownership of the land above the aquifer. This argument is based on the common law principle of "absolute ownership," which holds that the owner of the surface land has the right to use the water beneath it, as long as they do not cause harm to other users. This argument was ultimately rejected by the court, which held that the Edwards Aquifer Authority had the authority to regulate and manage the use of the water in the aquifer for the public good.

In the Case of Edwards Aquifer Authority V