Thomas James Kowalchuk v. City of Jackson, 330463

Plaintiffs (led by Thomas Kowalchuk) sued City of Jackson alleging its pumping from four Sharp Park wells deprived nearby landowners of the reasonable use/value of groundwater and sought a writ of mandamus forcing condemnation under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA).
Plaintiffs sought class certification for “all others similarly situated.” Trial court denied class certification and mandamus, and granted defendant summary disposition on reconsideration. Plaintiffs appealed.
Core factual context includes prior litigation (Gaskin) over the same wells in which a jury rejected claims that the City caused subsidence/damage; plaintiffs here do not allege active impairment of their private wells and rely on municipal water.
The trial court held groundwater is not subject to exclusive ownership; landowners have only a reasonable-use right, and therefore the City did not “acquire” private property triggering UCPA procedures.
The court also found plaintiffs failed to show numerosity (a sizeable number of class members who suffered actual injury), and plaintiffs had no clear legal right or defendant no clear duty to bring condemnation proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether groundwater is subject to exclusive ownership	Groundwater beneath plaintiffs’ land is their private property and its taking requires compensation	Groundwater is not exclusively owned; landowners have reasonable-use rights only	Groundwater is not subject to exclusive ownership; Michigan law applies a reasonable-use balancing test
Whether City must proceed under UCPA (mandamus to compel condemnation)	Plaintiffs have a right to force defendant to condemn/use UCPA because property was taken without compensation	No property right was taken; plaintiffs lack a compensable interest and City has no duty to commence condemnation	Plaintiffs failed to show a clear legal right or defendant a clear duty; mandamus denied
Whether circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction absent UCPA proceedings	Court must treat the claim as condemnation action, so UCPA precondition needed for jurisdiction	Plaintiffs sought mandamus (a prerogative writ); circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear such writs	Circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear mandamus; UCPA was not a jurisdictional prerequisite
Whether class certification was proper	Class-wide relief warranted; many owners affected by City pumping	Plaintiffs failed to identify or quantify a class of similarly injured persons	Trial court did not abuse discretion: plaintiffs failed numerosity and did not show a sizeable number suffered actual injury; certification denied

Schenk v. Ann Arbor, 196 Mich 75 (reasonableness rule governs percolating groundwater use)
Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters N. Am., 269 Mich App 25 (adopts reasonable-use balancing test and factors)
Miller Bros. v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 203 Mich App 674 (state conversion of private rights without following UCPA may require condemnation procedures)
Younkin v. Zimmer, 497 Mich 7 (standard of review and mandamus framework)
Barrow v. Detroit Election Comm., 301 Mich App 404 (elements required to obtain writ of mandamus)