|
<br />ol'an artificial channel." 12 ALR 187 (1921). Under thE' law
<br />of surface waters, this would be an absolute liability (no
<br />requirements of negligence): .....no one has the right to
<br />proj ect on adjoining lands, wi thou1: the owner's consen1:, water
<br />that otherwise 'Nould not have flowed thereon; and if hE~' does
<br />so, he may be h21d liable for an actionable wrong." 713 Am.Jur.
<br />20., Waters Section 359 (1975).
<br />
<br />In Aicher v. City of Denver, 10 Colo.App. 413, 52 P. 86
<br />(1897), the COUct distinguished be1:ween improvements to a
<br />natural drainag'2 course, for which there would be no lia-
<br />bility for dama''Jes in the absence of negligence, and im-
<br />provements whic:~ undertake to chanCfe, direct or control
<br />the natural drainage course, for which int:erference liability
<br />could attach upon injury. 52 p, at: 87. See also, e.Cf.,
<br />Bauer v.County of Ventura, 45 Cal. 20. 276, 289 P.2d 1 (J.955).
<br />
<br />Several Colorado cases have concerned improvements to natural
<br />water courses. In City of Boulder v. Boulder and White Rock
<br />Ditch and Reser'TOir Co., 73 Colo. 4,26, 216- P. 553 (1923),
<br />where the ci.ty had built storm sewers which collected surface
<br />water, and, in i30 doing, acceleratE,d it, and discharg'20. it
<br />all at one poin1: onto a natural wat:er course, the Court. held
<br />there was no Cfround for liability since this was all water
<br />which eventually would have found its way to this drainaCfe
<br />course anyway. Any damage caused by acceleration or '2ntry
<br />into the channe:. all at one point was damnum absque injuria.
<br />216 P. at 555. See also, Annotation,S ALR 1530 (1920).
<br />
<br />In Ambrosio v. Perl-Mack Construct:~on Co., 143 Colo. .49, 351
<br />P.2d 803 (1960), where the upper owner construc.ted a storm
<br />sewer which colJ.ected run-off from an area larger than the
<br />natural water shed, and emptied it into a natural draimvay,
<br />it was held that: so long as this wouldn't usually tax the
<br />capaci ty of the natural course, darnaqe due too run-off from
<br />unusually heavy rains wouldn't sub:iect the builder to liability
<br />to the lower owner ,vhose land was flooded. 351 P.2d at 806.
<br />(See also Olney Springs DrainaCfe D:~st:rict y. Auckland " 83 Colo.
<br />510, 267 P. 605 (1928) to the same effect.)
<br />
<br />Finally, in Hoff v. Ehrlich, Colo.App., 511 P.2d 523 (1973).
<br />the Court held t:hat even thouCfh, due to the improvements, there
<br />was an increase in the amount of wast:e water flow, "in order
<br />for the owner of the servient esta1:e to be afforded a re.1uedy,
<br />it must be evidE.nt that the water was sent c:own in a manner
<br />or quanti ty cau~,ing more harm than it: formerly had done. 511
<br />P.2d at 525. (F.lso Johnson v. J<raE,qer, 72 Colo. 547, 212 P. 820
<br />(1923)). '-
<br />
<br />-2--
<br />
|