Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />lands has an easement over lower lands for drainage of surface <br />waters and natural drainage conditions can be altered by an upper <br />proprietor provided the water is not sent down in a manner or <br />quantity to do more harm than formerly. Hankins v. Borland, <br />163 Colo. 575,431 F.2d 1007 (1967); H. Gordon Howard v. Cactus <br />Hill Ranch Company, 529 F.2d 660 (1974); Hoff v. Ehrlich, 511 <br />F.2d 523 (1973); but see, Ambrosio v. Perl-Mack Construction <br />Company, 143 Colo. 49, 351 F.2d 803 (1960). <br /> <br />-I <br /> <br />3. Rea sona b Ie Use Rule. <br /> <br />Under the reasonable use rule, each property owner <br />can legally make reasonable use of his land, even though the flow <br />of surface waters is altered thereby and causes some harm to ot~ers. <br />However, liability attaches when his harmful interference with the <br />flow of surface water is lIunreasonablell. Whether a landownerls use <br />is unreasonable is determined by a nuisance-type balancing test. <br />The analysis involves three inquiries: (1) Was there reasonable <br />necessity for the actor to alter the drainage to nake use of his <br />land? (2) Was the alteration done in a reasonable manner? :3) Does <br />the utility of the actor's conduct reasonably out~eigh the gravity <br />of harm to others? Restatement Torts, ~~822-831, 833 (1939); Restate- <br />ment (Second) Torts, ~158, Illustration 5. Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, <br />Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, <br />North Dakota, Ohio and Utah have adopted this rule. Some states have <br />restricted their application of the rule to urban areas (South Dakota .... <br />and Texas). In Pendegast v. Aiken, 236 S.E.2d 781 (1977), the North ~ <br />Carolina Supreme Court traces the common law rule to the civil law <br />rule to adoption by that court of the reasonable use rule, stating <br />at page 793: <br /> <br />lIlt is no longer simply a [!latter of balancing <br />the interests of individual landowners; the <br />interests of society must be considered. On <br />the whole the rigid solutions offered by the <br />common enemy and civil law rules no longer <br />provide an adequate vehicle by which drainage <br />problems may be properly resolved.1I <br /> <br />B. Municipal Liability. <br /> <br />A municipality is generally treated like a private party <br />in drainage matters. Harbison v. City of Hi11sboro, 103 Ore. 257, <br />204 P.613, 618 (1922); City of Golden v. Western .[,umber and Pole <br />Company, 60 Colo. 382, 154 P. 95 (1916) (a munici?ality undertaking <br />a public improvement is liable like an individual for damage resulting <br />from negligence or an omission of duty); City of Jenver v. Rhodes, <br /> <br />(2 ) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1-15-80 <br />