OCR Text |
Show MICHIGAN 405 The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the respective rights of landowners concerning the disposal of surface water can be altered by the doctrine of adverse use. If all of the elements are present, a prescriptive right may be acquired to drain additional quantities of surface water across another's land through drains or ditches.81 Michigan has adopted a drainage code which supplements the judi- cial rules discussed above. Provisions are made for the construction and operation of drains to take care of drainage waters, and for the organization of drainage districts to undertake extended drainage programs.82 4. Ground Water The court decisions in Michigan relating to ground water rights are very limited, and legal rules governing the use of ground water are not fully defined. However, to the extent that the courts have dealt with this subject, the rule announced is that the overlying land- owner has a qualified right to utilize the ground water under his land. He is limited to a reasonable use of the available water supply, or to a quantity necessary to make a reasonable use of his land, in- cluding use for irrigation, manufacturing, and such other purposes as are reasonable in the development and use of his land.83 The Michi- gan Supreme Court has further said that this rule applies to a munic- ipality supplying its inhabitants with water, as well as to use by private parties.84 With regard to liability for interference with the ground water supply on adjoining land, a recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals stated that liability depended on whether the activity, if intentional, was unreasonable; or, if unintentional, was negligent.83 In an early case it was held that there was no cause of action for pol- lution of subterranean waters when caused by a proper use of adjoin- ing property, without negligence, unless the injury was positive and substantial.86 Michigan has provided for some regulation of water well drilling. In order to protect the public health, the State health commissioner has been delegated the responsibility of licensing water well drilling contractors and pump installers. The commissioner is to issue a cer- tificate of registration to well-drilling contractors and pump installers who meet the requirements set forth in the act. Well drillers are re- quired to furnish the commissioner with a copy of a log of the well within 60 days following its completion. An advisory board is created to assist the commissioner in administering the act, and the commis- sioner, with the advice of the advisory board and the concurrence of the State Council of Health, may adopt rules, regulations, and a construction code which shall include, but not be limited to, provi- sions governing the qualifications and examination of well drilling n-Conklin v. Boyd, 46 Mich. 56, 9 N.W. 134 (1881) ; Gregory v. Bush, 64 Mich. 37, 31 N.W. 90 (1887). 82 Mich. C.L.A. eh. 280. MSchenk v. City of Ann Arbor, 196 Mich. 75, 163 N.W. 109 (1917) ; Hart v. D'Agostini, 7 Mich. App. 319, 151 N.W. 2d 826 (1967). ^Schenk v. City of Ann Arbor, 196 Mich. 75, 163 N.W. 109 (1917) ; Bernard v. Oity of St. Louis, 222 Mich. 159, 189 N.W. 891 (1922). 8= Hart V. D'Agostini, 7 Mich. App. 319, 151 N.W. 2d 26 (1967). 89 Upjohn v. Board of Health of Richmond, 46 Mich. 542, 9 N.W. 845 (1881). |