OCR Text |
Show NORTH CAROLINA 577 overflow or flood waters from the ocean as diffused surface waters. Apparently the water flowing above the dune line would have re- turned to the ocean except for an elevated highway constructed by the highway commission which had the effect of channeling the water onto plaintiff's lower land. The court held that this was an unlawful interference with the natural flow pattern. The court also emphasized that flooding of the type here involved was not unforeseeable, and could not be classified as an "act of God." 4. Ground Water Although North Carolina has adopted the "reasonable use" theory with respect to subterranean percolating water, the court has indi- cated that a landowner may divert as much water as he can bene- ficially use on his own land, even though such use of the aquifer may affect adjoining landowners.68 His use must not, however, be wasteful,67 and the water cannot be diverted for use, even by a municipality, on other land.88 Negligent obstruction of the natural flow of percolating water is actionable69 as is pollution of a ground water source.70 In section 3.2, supra, the 1967 Water Use Act was discussed. It will be remembered that a permit is now required for ground water diversions in capacity use areas in excess of 100,000 gallons daily. The act expressly preserves existing riparian rights in surface streams71 but not in ground water. It will be interesting to see how the North Carolina court will resolve conflicts between ground water permittees and other prior users of ground water. The Well Construction Act also was passed in 1967. It requires that permits be obtained from the board for (1) the construction of all wells with a designed capacity of 100,000 gallons daily or greater and (2) any other well in an area where the Board finds that a permit is necessary in order to protect ground water re- sources. The board is authorized to issue regulations governing the location, construction, repair, and abandonment of wells, and pump- ing equipment. Permits are not required for wells or pumping in- stallations in existence and in use on the effective date of the act (July 6, 1967).72 Publications Available: Institution for water resource research: Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina 124 Riddick Building North Carolina State University Raleigh, N.O. 27607 91&-755-2815or2816 68 W. Aycock, note 3, at 25, feels that "reasonable use" as applied to surface streams does not have the same meaning in connection with ground water diversions. «C/. Bayer v. Nello L. Teer Co., 256 N.C. 509, 124 S.E. 2d 552 (1962). as Rouse v. City of Kinston, 188 N.C. 1, 123 S.E. 482 (1924). & Jones v. Home Bldg. & Loan Aaa'n., 252 N.C. 626, 114 S.E. 2d 638 (1963). ™ Hasten v. The Texas Co., 194 N.C. 540, 140 S.E. 89 (1927). "Sec. 143-215.22. « Sees. 87-83 to 87-96. |