On Behalf of Dawson Springman | Jun 8, 2026 | Energy Law | Updated October 4, 2026
Interest in extracting lithium from produced water raises a practical title question: does the right to handle the water also establish ownership of the minerals dissolved in it?
In Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC (June 27, 2025), the Supreme Court of Texas held that the oil-and-gas conveyances at issue included the constituent water in the liquid-waste byproduct. The court explained that a surface owner seeking to retain that water would need an express reservation or exception. The decision should be read with the particular conveyance language and facts in mind.
The overlapping claims for mineral solutes
The opinion expressly declined to decide ownership of nonhydrocarbon minerals in that byproduct because those substances were not in dispute. It therefore does not, by itself, resolve title to lithium recovered from the water.
- Review the source of the claimed rights: deeds, reservations, mineral and surface interests, leases, and later agreements may raise different questions.
- Distinguish the water stream from the recovered product: a right concerning disposal or handling should not be treated as a complete answer to every mineral-ownership question.
For a proposed extraction project, the title analysis needs to address the actual interests and agreements involved rather than assume that a general rule about water or minerals decides the matter.
Mitigating title risks in Western Texas
Before committing to a project, identify which parties claim rights in the water and recovered minerals, what the existing documents grant or reserve, and where additional agreements may be needed.
Clearly drafted terms can address extraction rights, compensation, handling responsibilities, and disputes. They can reduce uncertainty, but no agreement guarantees that litigation will never arise. Our energy transaction practice and title practice provide related information.