OCR Text |
Show GEORGIA 237 an unnatural manner to the damage of lower landowners, as dis- cussed in section 3.7, infra. A few cases might be illustrative. A dam owner cannot impound water so as to deprive a lower riparian of a reasonable quantity of water, which he would otherwise receive.65 If a dam backs up water and causes it to overflow lands of another, he will be liable for dam- ages,66 and it constitutes a trespass.67 If one acquires a right to repair or rebuild a dam, he is not thereby authorized to change the location of the dam.68 A reservoir owner may release stored water without incurring liability for damage to downstream hay fields where the evidence indicated that the damage so inflicted was no greater than it would have been by nature's flood waters, and where the amount of water released would not have overflowed the channel in the ab- sence of other flood water.69 And it has been held that a hydroelectric dam which is properly constructed is not a continuing and abatable nuisance simply because it floods lands of another, so that one whose property is damaged thereby must bring action within the 4-year statute of limitation, or within 4 years from the date of the injury.70 3.6 Springs Despite a statute71 which would seem to do away with under- ground "streams" as a category of water, the distinction between such subterranean streams and percolating water still seems to exist, as discussed in section 4, infra. For the present, the relevance of the distinction is that springs which are supplied by underground streams, or which are tributary to underground streams or surface watercourses, are governed by the same legal rules which apply to surface watercourses; whereas, if the spring is supplied by perco- lating water and does not discharge into a watercourse, the land- owner may deal with the water as he pleases, so long as he does not discharge the waters on the lands of another through acts of negli- gence or by increasing the natural volume or velocity of the dis- charge. Thus, the Georgia Court has said that a spring supplied by perco- lating water is privately owned, just as rain falling onto a roof and collected into a cistern is privately owned, but that underground streams are subject to reasonable use by overlying landowners.72 The facts before the court showed that there were springs on adjoining lands, and the question was whether they were connected by an under- ground stream or by percolating ground water: The rule seems to be well settled that "an injury to a subterranean supply of water by lawful acts of an adjacent landowner, done within his own prem- 86 White v. East Lake Land Co., 96 Ga. 415, 23 S.E. 393 (1894). 6« Wetter v. Campbell, 60 Ga. 267 (1877). 67 DeVaughn v. Minor, 77 Ga. 810, 1 S.E. 433 (1887). 68 Stafford v. Maddox, 87 Ga. 537, 13 S.E. 559 (1891). 8» Brown v. City of Atlanta, 66 Ga. 71 (1880). '° Smith v. Dallas Utility Co., 27 Ga. app. 22, 107 S.E. 381 (1921). It appeared that plaintiff's land was permanently damaged and would be subjected to future flooding, and the court said that in such a situation "all damages, past and prospective, must be recovered in a single action, and thereafter no other action therefor can be maintained." Since the action was not commenced within 4 years from the time it arose, it was for- ever barred. Constitutional issues were raised on appeal, but were not considered by the court because they had not been raised in the trial court. 71 Sec. 150-1408. *»8toner v. Patten, 132 Ga. 178, 63 S E. 897 (1909). |