WATERS

6 definitions found across Law Mind sources

WATERSAuthored
The Law Mind • 1466 words
Definition
"Waters" in legal usage refers collectively to bodies and flows of water — rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, groundwater, and the sea — considered as objects of legal rights, regulatory jurisdiction, or property. The term functions both descriptively (identifying a physical resource) and jurisdictionally (marking the boundaries of legal authority over that resource). Legal meaning varies significantly depending on the context: property law, water rights law, and environmental/regulatory law each use the term with distinct technical content. 1. Waters generally (property law). Any naturally occurring accumulation or flow of water, including surface water, subsurface streams, and percolating groundwater, insofar as such water is subject to ownership, use rights, or riparian entitlement. At common law, rights to "waters" attached to the land through which or alongside which they flowed. 2. Navigable waters. Waters capable of supporting commerce or navigation, historically the threshold for public rights and sovereign ownership of the underlying bed. The federal government's regulatory and admiralty jurisdiction historically tracked navigability. Over time, the definition expanded beyond literal boat-passage capability. 3. Waters of the United States (regulatory). A term of art under the Clean Water Act defining the outer boundary of federal regulatory jurisdiction. Subject to sustained administrative and judicial contest, the phrase has contracted and expanded through agency rulemaking and Supreme Court interpretation. "Waters of the United States" is not synonymous with "navigable waters" in common parlance, though the two terms are historically linked. 4. Percolating waters. Underground waters that do not flow in a known, defined channel and are not reasonably ascertainable in location or course. Treated separately from subsurface streams in both common law and most American jurisdictions, typically subject to the rule of capture or reasonable use rather than riparian rights. 5. Surface waters. Diffuse water on the land surface — from rain, snowmelt, or overflow — that has not yet collected into a defined watercourse. Distinct from watercourses; governed by different common-law doctrines regarding drainage, obstruction, and liability. ---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Plural of "water"; also amniotic fluid in obstetric contexts ("her waters broke"). Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Waters" as a plural denoted bodies or expanses of water generally — rivers, seas, lakes — without technical subdivision. The gap matters because in legal research "waters" is almost never used in the obstetric sense, but the common plural usage — meaning simply any expanse of water — can obscure the fact that law has fragmented the concept into sharply distinct categories carrying different ownership rules, use rights, and regulatory regimes. A river, a wetland, a percolating aquifer, and the open sea are all colloquially "waters," but each triggers a different legal framework. Researchers who treat the term as undifferentiated will miss those distinctions entirely. ---
Common Confusion
Waters / Watercourse / Water Rights. "Waters" is the broader category; a "watercourse" is a defined, confined flow with a bed, banks, and regular current — a subset of waters. "Water rights" are the legal entitlements to use waters and should not be conflated with ownership of the water itself (which, under most American doctrines, is not possible in the property-ownership sense). The three concepts are deeply interdependent but are not interchangeable. Navigable waters / Waters of the United States. These terms are frequently used as synonyms in casual legal writing but are technically distinct. "Navigable waters" is a common-law and constitutional concept; "waters of the United States" is a regulatory term of art whose scope has been separately defined — and repeatedly revised — by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers. After Sackett v. EPA (2023), the regulatory scope of "waters of the United States" was significantly narrowed relative to prior agency interpretations. ---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES - Navigable waters (title navigability; federal regulatory navigability) - Waters of the United States (Clean Water Act jurisdiction) - Percolating waters (underground, no defined channel) - Subsurface streams (underground, defined channel) - Surface waters (diffuse, not yet in a watercourse) - Tidal waters - Interstate waters - Territorial waters (public international law) ---
Why It Matters in Research
The word "waters" is one of the most jurisdictionally and doctrinally layered terms in American law, and its meaning in a given source depends entirely on context, era, and regulatory regime. Trap 1 — Regulatory definition in flux. "Waters of the United States" has been redefined by agency rule multiple times since the 1970s and narrowed by Supreme Court decisions including Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) and Sackett v. EPA (2023). Corpus materials from different decades will reflect different scopes. A regulatory analysis written in 2007 reflects a different jurisdictional boundary than one written in 2024. Trap 2 — Navigability has multiple definitions. There is navigability for title (did the water support commerce at statehood, determining sovereign bed ownership), navigability for regulatory jurisdiction (broader, includes historical and potential use), and navigability for admiralty jurisdiction (different test again). Bouvier and other historical sources conflate these. Researchers must identify which navigability test applies to the question at hand. Trap 3 — Percolating water doctrine. Bouvier's treatment of percolating waters reflects late-nineteenth-century common law. Most western states have since displaced or heavily modified the common-law rule of capture for percolating groundwater through permit systems, correlative rights doctrines, or constitutional appropriation frameworks. Do not use historical common-law percolating-water rules as a proxy for current western state law. Trap 4 — Federal reserved rights. On federal and Indian lands, water rights are not governed by state law in the ordinary sense. The Winters Doctrine reserves unappropriated water for federal purposes even without state-law compliance. Corpus materials addressing western water rights that do not engage with federal reserved rights are incomplete for research involving federal lands. Cross-corpus connection. The Clean Water Act entry in the Administrative Law Encyclopedia and the Navigable Waters entry in the Environmental Law Encyclopedia treat jurisdictional doctrine in detail. The Federal Reserved Water Rights entry in the Property Encyclopedia is essential for any research touching tribal or federal land water issues. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary addresses waters primarily through the lens of riparian rights and fisheries, reflecting the dominance of English common law in nineteenth-century American water doctrine. Bouvier distinguishes navigable from non-navigable rivers for purposes of fishing rights, following Blackstone's Commentaries and early English decisions. In non-navigable rivers, Bouvier assigns riparian ownership to the thread of the stream, with exclusive fishery rights as a consequence — a framework that American courts widely adopted but that eastern and western states developed differently. Bouvier's treatment of percolating waters tracks the then-prevailing rule that underground waters without a known, defined channel belong to the surface owner without limitation — the so-called "English rule" or rule of capture — while acknowledging that even waters with defined underground channels could be treated as percolating if their existence was not reasonably ascertainable. This distinction between known subsurface streams and percolating waters retains analytical value in jurisdictions still applying common-law groundwater rules but is largely superseded in the West. What Bouvier does not address, and cannot, is the twentieth-century transformation of "waters" from a primarily private-law concept (who owns the bed, who has the fishing right) into a public-regulatory concept (what federal agencies can regulate, what requires a permit). That shift is the most significant change in the legal meaning of the term and must be sourced entirely from post-New Deal materials and modern regulatory texts. ---
Jurisdictional Note
Eastern states generally apply riparian rights doctrine to surface waters; western states apply prior appropriation ("first in time, first in right"), which makes the meaning of "waters" operationally different — in the West, the right to use water is severable from land ownership, which has no analogue in riparian doctrine. For groundwater, variation is even wider: states range from rule-of-capture (Texas) to regulated correlative rights to permit systems. No single common-law rule reliably describes American groundwater law. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Environmental & Energy Law Encyclopedia: Navigable Waters, Waters of the United States, and Jurisdiction The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia: Water Rights — Federal Reserved Water Rights (Winters Doctrine) The Law Mind Administrative Law & Government Encyclopedia: Clean Water Act — NPDES Permits, Water Quality Standards, and Wetlands ---
Related Terms
Watercourse Navigability Riparian rights Prior appropriation Waters of the United States Percolating waters Surface waters Groundwater Tidal waters Territorial waters Water rights Littoral rights Public trust doctrine Clean Water Act Wetlands Federal reserved water rights (Winters Doctrine) Rule of capture
WATERSmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
In rivers not navigable the fisheries be- long to the owners of the soil or to the riparian proprietors; 2 Ela. Com. 39; Gould, Wat. 42, 48; Hale. De Jure Mar.c.4; 1 Mod. 105; 4 Burr. 2162; Dav. 155; 7 Co. 16 a; Plowd. 154 a. In such rivers the owner of the adjoining soil has an exclusive right of fishery in front of his land to the thread of the river, except so far as this right has been qualified by legislative regulation; but this right is limited to the taking of fish, and does not carry with it the right to prevent the passage of fish to lakes and ponds for breeding purpose; 5 Pick. 99. The common-law doctrine accepting the tide-water test of navigability has been declared to be the law in several of the United States; 17 Johns. 195; 20 id. 90;8 Ν. Η. 821; 1 Pick. 180; 5 id. 199; 5 Day 72; 1 Baldw. 60; 5 Mas. 191; 5 Harr. & J. 193; 2 Conn. 481; 108 Mass. 446, 447; 37 Me. 472. But in some states, as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the right of fishery in the great rivers of those states, though not tide-waters, is held to be vested in the state and open to all the world; 2 Binn. 475; 14 S. & R. 71; 1 M'Cord 580; 8 Ired. 277; 84 Ohio 192. See 89 Pa. 346; 75 Hun 472. This modification of the com- mon-law doctrine has been applied not to the abandonment of the distinction be- tween the public and private rights of fisheries as affected by navigability, but to the establishment of a different test of navigability, made necessary by the differ- ence of physical conditions in the two countries already alluded to. So in the leading Pennsylvania case the point of the decision was that neither the quality of fresh or salt water, nor the flux or reflux of the tide, would determine whether a river should be considered navigable or not; 2 Binn. 475. After changing the test of navigability, these cases applied the rule of the public character of streams act- ually navigable which had been in Eng- land determined by the mere test of tide water. See 7 Pet. 320; 60 Pa. 339. In this country each state.has the ex- clusive control of fisheries in the tide waters and beds of tide waters within its ju- risdiction, subject to the paramount right of navigation; 139 U. S. 240; 94 id. 391. This right is said by Cooley to be "con- sidered as pertaining to the state by virtue of an authority existing in every sovereign. and which is called the eminent domain. Some of these rights are complete without any action on the part of the state, as it the case with the rights of fishery in public waters." "Cooley, Const. Lim. 651, 524. The jurisdiction of a state is coex- tensive with its territory, coextensive with its legislative powers, and within what are generally recognized as the territorial limits of a state, by the law of nations, a state can define its boundaries on the sea and the boundaries of its counties: 3 Wheat. 386; within its limits a state has authority to regulate the time and manner of the taking of fish by the public in the waters therein; 1 Metc. 95; 20 Pick. 186; 24 Me. 482; 75 id. 597; and so far as public and common rights are concerned, the state has control over fisheries; 85 Me. 118. The control of fisheries to the extent of at least a marine league from the shore belongs to the nation on whose coast the fisheries are prosecuted. Bays wholly within the territory of a nation, not ex- ceeding two marine leagues in width at the mouth, are within its territorial juris- diction; 139 U. S. 240. The fact that congress has never assumed control over fisheries is persuasive evidence that the right to control them remains in the state; 139 U. S. 240. In England it was held that the ownership of the crown in the bed of navigable waters is for the benefit of the subject, and cannot be used in any such manner to derogate from or interfere with the right of navigation, which belongs by law to all subjects of the realm; and that consequently the grantees of a particular portion, who occupied it for a fishery, could not be lawfully authorized to charge and collect anchorage dues from vessels anchoring therein 20 C. B. N. 8. 1. By the award of the arbitrators under the treaty with Great Britain (27 Stat. L. 948), it was settled that the United States had no exclusive jurisdiction in Behring Sea outside the ordinary three-mile limit, and no right of property in, or protection over, the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States when found outside of such three-mile limit. Therefore the act of March 2, 1889, declaring that Rev. St. sec. 1956, which forbids the killing of fur-bearing animals in Alaska and the waters thereof, shall apply to "all the do- minion of the United States in the waters of Behring Sea," must be construed to mean the waters within three miles of the shores of Alaska; 75 Fed. Rep. 518. Private or several fisheries in navigable waters may be established by the legisla- tures, or may, perhaps, beacquired by pre- scription clearly proved; 16 Pet. 869; 6 Cow. 369; 5 Ired. 118; 4 Md
WATERSmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
Percolating Waters: As distinguished from sub-surface streams, are the waters beneath the earth's surface which do not have a known and defined channel. 30 Am. & Eng. Encyc. 2nd ed., 310; 111 Cal. 639. It has been held that underground bodies of water, though having defined channels, will be deemed percolating waters if their existence and location are unknown and not reasonably ascertainable. Id.; 80 Miss. 535. Hence, in order to prevent the classification of underground waters percolating waters, they must be known or easily ascertainable and discoverable from the surface of the ground without subsur- face explorations, (L. R. 9 Ir. 172), and underground waters are presumed to be percolating waters until it is shown that they flow in a well-known and defined channel. Id.; L. R. 17 Ir. 459. After percolating waters have reached the waters of a water- course they lose their character as perco- lating waters. Id.; 37 Oregon 256. as Underground Watercourses: Subter- ranean watercourses which flow in known and defined channels are governed by the same rules, with regard to their diversion and the correlative rights of the landowners through whose land they run, as are applied to surface watercourses. Id.; 6 Exch. 353. In order, however, that the rules applicable to surface watercourses shall be applied to subterranean streams, the channels of such streams must be known and defined, other- wise they will be considered as percolating waters and will be governed by the rules applicable to the latter class of waters. Id.; 7 H. L. Cas. 349. Surface Waters: Waters on the surface of the ground which are of a casual or vagrant character, following no definite course and having no substantial or perma- nent existence, and which are lost by being diffused over the surface of the ground, through percolation into the soil and by evaporation. Id.; L. R. 6 Ch. 486; 108 Ind. 13 et al. They are to be distinguished from watercourses, to wit, streams usually flowing in definite channels, and from lakes and ponds, to wit, bodies of water confined in depressions of the earth and having a sub- stantial as distinguished from a vagrant existence. Thus, waters from rain melting snow, having no banks or channel in the flow in a known direction or course (21 Iowa 166), as in the case of valleys and depressions accustomed to find their way. Id.; 86 N. Y. 140. Whether water is or is not surface water must be determined from the peculiar facts in the case in which the question is presented. Id.; 53 Neb. 237. After waters which in their first instance were surface waters have reached and become a part of a watercourse, or a permanent lake or pond, they lose their character as surface or
watersnoun
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
plural of water | Amniotic fluid (see note at water (“amniotic fluid”)).
Watersname
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
A surname originating as a patronymic.
Watersname
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
A topographic surname. | An unincorporated community in Otsego Lake Township, Otsego County, Michigan, United States, named for the many lakes in the locality.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In