OCR Text |
Show RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS IN DIFFUSED SURFACE WATERS 553 then explained as follows:85 The expression as used in our decisions may be an admonition in general terms against damaging the lower owner by changing the place at which surface waters are discharged onto his land or by concentrating into one place the flow of water that would naturally flow onto the lower land in a more diffused form. Whether they intended to mean that or something more or less, we need not decide in this case. There may be circumstances under which the extraordinary acceleration of the flow of surface water in its natural channels may be enjoined. Since there is no evidence of any such extraordinary circumstances in this case, we need not consider that question at this time. In 1966 the California Supreme Court was faced with the problem of determining whether the long established civil law rule was adaptable to urban development.86 The civil law rule has not been universally accepted in its application to urban land, said the court; and as a result it has been suggested in the cases that an undefined exception to the rule exists in California with respect to urban land.87 Admittedly the rule was adopted when California was primarily a rural society, and apparently it has never been strictly applied in a case involving urban land. On the other hand, no documentation has been produced to establish that the rule has in fact impeded urban development in the state. A number of highly urbanized states follow the rule, and California's phenomenal growth rate, to which no one can be oblivious and of which this court may take judicial notice, appears unstunted by the existence and application of the civil law rule since 1873. Litigants contended that California had never observed the civil law rule with respect to urban property, but the supreme court could find little precedent for concluding that a different rule was essential for urban areas. Said the court:88 It appears, therefore, that the civil law rule has been well settled and generally applied in California for almost a century, although it may be unnecessarily rigid and occasionally unjust, particularly in heavily developed areas. It places the entire liability for damages on one owner on the basis of the unvarying formula that he who changes conditions is liable. Furthermore, the rule creates a not infrequent onerous burden of proof as to what the natural 85 214 Oreg. at 561-562. 86Keys v.Romley, 64 Cal. (2d) 396, 412 Pac. (2d) 529, 50 Cal. Rptr. 273 (1966). See also Pagliottiv.Acquistapace, 64 Cal. (2d) 873, 412 Pac. (2d) 538, 50 Cal. Rptr. 282 (1966). 87Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal. (2d) 396, 412 Pac. (2d) 529, 535, 50 Cal. Rptr. 273, 279 (1966). "414 Pac. (2d) at 535-536, 50 Cal. Rptr. at 279-280. |