| OCR Text |
Show PENNSYLVANIA 649 may be found where he discharges water on his neighbor in greatly increased quantities.87 The court has noted that all owners of build- ing lots in urban areas buy such lots with an obvious knowledge or understanding that construction and development will likely change surface contours and natural drainage patterns, and they must be prepared to accept such changes.88 There are no cases dealing with the right to use surface waters, but Pennsylvania would probably follow the general rule which al- lows the owner of land upon which surface water is found or over which it flows to collect and use it for his benefit. 4. Ground Water Underground water in Pennsylvania has been classified as either (1) flowing in well-defined channels or (2) percolating through the soil. Rights of use in underground water depends upon this dis- tinction.89 The owner of lands through which underground water passes or flows in a well-defined channel has only a qualified right to make a reasonable use of the water, because he is governed by the same rules which apply to riparian rights in a surface watercourse.90 He may not unreasonably interfere with the flow or divert the sub- terranean stream to the injury of a lower landowner.91 However, the existence of underground streams is difficult to prove in the typical case, and if the existence of a well-defined subterranean stream is not known or easily ascertained without subsurface excava- tion, then it is presumed that the underground water is percolating,92 and different legal rules apply, so that a property owner is not liable for interfering with the ground water supply of an adjacent property owner-unless he acts with negligence or malice.98 Percolating waters do not move in known or defined channels, but ooze and percolate through the earth. While the Pennsylvania court originally held that the owner of lands on which percolating waters are found has an absolute ownership in such waters, subsequent de- cisions have modified that position.94 The court has since said that when a spring or a well is supplied by water that percolates through the lands of an adjoining owner, the latter may use these percolating waters for lawful purposes without being liable for interference with his neighbor's spring or well but he may not act with malice or negli- gence and he may not sell or distribute the percolating water for uses not related to his lands, if the result thereof will damage neigh- boring wells or springs.95 A person is not liable for interfering with the flow of percolating waters through his land by mining opera- tions, because mining is a reasonable use of the land.86 *>0ham1>erUn v. Oiaffoni, 373 Pa. 430, 96 A. 2d 140 (1953). «helper v. Heywood-Hall Const. Co., 381 Pa. 317. 113 A. 2d 148 (1955). »Brown v. Kistler, 190 Pa. 499, 42 Atl. 885 (1899). »W Oiacinto v. New Jersey Zinc Go., 27 Leh. L..T. 307 (1957). 91 Whetstone v. Bowser, 29 Pa. 59 (1857); Appeal of Heltman, 4 Walk. 35 (1882). ^DlGiacinto v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 27 Leh. L.J. 307 (1957). •» Williams v. Ladew. 161 Pa. 283, 29 Atl. 54 (1894). m Brown v. Kistter, 190 Pa. 499, 42 Atl. 885 (1899). MRothrauff v. Sinking Spring Water Co., 339 Pa. 129. 14 A. 2d 87 (1940). *>Haldeman v. BrucTthart, 45 Pa. 514, 84 Am. Dec. 511 (1863). |
