OCR Text |
Show 418 MINNESOTA to cause damage which was foreseeable, and which could reasonably have been anticipated as a consequence of such operation.67 3.6 Springs An early case in Minnesota held that the owner of land had no right to drain or divert percolating waters on his land, except for the benefit and improvement of his own premises, when such acts destroyed or materially impaired the springs of another.68 While that case clearly indicates that a landowner may interfere with or dry up the flow of a neighbor's spring if he acts to improve his own lands, the court subsequently applied the reasonable use doctrine in a case involving ground water in an artesianbasin.69 It is not clear whether springs are covered by the permit system. If a spring is tributary to or forms a surface watercourse, it would seem to be governed by the permit system (except to the extent that water uses therefrom qualify under the statutory exemptions).70 Spring waters that do not leave the lands upon which they originate would seem to be subject to control and use by the landowner. 3.7 Diffused Surf ace Waters Although only the leading Minnesota cases on diffused surface waters are discussed in this brief summary, all of the decisions were analyzed in 1940 by Professors Kinyon and McClure in what has come to be a classic article in the field.71 Since that time, there has been a significant development in Minnesota law, and that will be noted below. The common enemy rule was adopted by the courts at an early date, but the very statement of the rule itself contained important qualifi- cations. It was said:72 [S]urface water is a common enemy, which an owner, in the necessary and proper improvement of his land, may get rid of as best he may, subject, how- ever, to the restriction of the maxim that a man must so use his own as not unnecessarily to injure another, (Emphasis added.) The italicized language itself contains two limitations. In addition to these? it was soon held that a landowner may neither collect surface waters in an artificial channel and discharge them onto lower land, nor can he negligently obstruct the flow through natural ravines or gullies.73 A few years later, in Sheehan^ v. Flynn,7i the court permitted an upper owner to drain, by artificial means, surface water which had accumulated on his land in natural depressions. The language of the opinion is broad enough to permit altering the flow of surface water « Willie v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 190 Minn. 95, 250 N.W. 809 (1935). <w Stillwater Water Co. v. Farmer, 89 Minn. 58, 93 N.W. 907 (1903) and 92 Minn. 230, 99 N.W. 82 (1904). wErickson v. Orookston Waterworks, Power & Light Co., 100 Minn. 481, 111 N.W. 391 (1907) and 105 Minn. 182, 117 N.W. 435 (1908). ™ Sees. 105.38 and 105.41. ^S. Kinyon and R. McClure, Interferences With Surface Waters, 24 Minn. L. Rev. 891, 908-13 (1940). The article deals with diffused surface water law in all States except Alaska and Hawaii. ™ Pye v. City of Mankato, 36 Minn. 373, 31 N.W. 863, 864 (1887). ™ McClure v. Bed Wing, 28 Minn. 186, 9 N.W. 767 (1881) ; Bowe v. St. Paul, M. & M. By., 41 Minn. 384, 43 N.W. 76 (1889). » 59 Minn. 436, 61 N.W. 462 (1894). See note, 2 Minn. L. Rev. 449 (1917). |