OCR Text |
Show CONNECTICUT 183 With respect to liability for changing the course or rate of flow of surface water, Connecticut has adopted a hybrid approach which lies somewhere between the common law and civil law rules: A land owner is under no duty to receive upon his land surface water from the adjacent properties, but in the use or improvement of it he may repel such water at his boundary. On the other hand, he incurs no liability by reason of the fact that surface water falling or running onto his land flows thence to the property of others in its natural manner. But he may not use or improve his land in such a way as to increase the total volume of surface water which flows from it to adjacent property, or as to discharge it or any part of it upon such property in a manner different in volume or course from its natural flow to the substantial damage of the owner of that property.88 There are no Connecticut cases dealing with the use of diffused sur- face waters, but it is likely that the prevailing rule would be fol- lowed, which allows a landowner to capture and use such water. 4. Ground Water The use of ground water in Connecticut has been very limited and, as a result, there have been relatively few conflicts regarding the right to use ground water. The first case concerning ground water use in Connecticut was decided in 1850,90 where the court adopted the "absolute ownership" rule: Water, whether moving or motionless in the earth, is not, in the eye of the law, distinct from the earth.91 The court noted that lack of scientific knowledge concerning the nature of ground water and its movement made it impossible to establish a system of rules controlling its use, as it had done for surface watercourses. The same reasoning was followed for a time in cases involving pollution of ground water,92 and the court said that a plaintiff could no more complain of the damage caused by the defendant allowing noxious matter to enter subterranean water on his land and thereby polluting plaintiff's well than he could if defendant had dug a well on his own land that had dried up plaintiff's well.93 However, the court also said that water penetrating the soil and migrating near the surface was equivalent to surface water rather than ground water, and that the pollution of a neighbor's well by noxious ma- terials migrating in surface and near-surface waters was actionable as a nuisance.94 In 1936, the court rejected its earlier distinction between water migrating near the surface and also limited the absolute ownership rule so far as ground water pollution is involved, saying that even though a person may appropriate all of the underground water and thus prevent another from using it, he has no right to poison or contaminate it so that when it passes to his neighbor it is dangerous or unhealthy.95 The court said that the primary element establishing » Tide Water Oil Sales Corp. v. BMmelam, 114 Conn. 182, 158 Atl. 229 (1932). ooRoath v. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 553 (1850). «Id. at 590. 82 Brown & Bros. v. Illius, 27 Conn. 84 (1858). "»Id. at 95. w Brown v. Illius, 25 Conn. 583 (1857). 95 Swift & Company v. Peoples Goal & Oil Company, 121 Conn. 579, 186 Atl. 629 (1936). |