OCR Text |
Show NEW JERSEY 507 While it does not appear that there are any cases dealing directly with rights of use, it would seem that the owner of the land may use the diffused surface water arising thereon. The problems involving diffused surface water in New Jersey have involved the disposition of these waters rather than the right to use them. The New Jersey court originally adopted the "common enemy" rule for settling disputes over the disposal of diffused sur- face waters.111 Under this rule, each landowner could defend against the diffused waters without incurring liability for damages caused to adjoining owners. This rule proved to be too harsh, and the court continually carved out exceptions to it and in 1956 the court rejected it outright in favor of the "reasonable use rule."112 Under the "reasonable use rule," the actions of the persons in dis- posing of unwanted diffused surface waters and the effect of the disposal on lands of others are evaluated by the standard of reason- ableness considering all of the circumstances involved. If a land- owner's actions are unreasonable under the circumstances, then the party disposing of the diffused surface waters is liable for all dam- ages caused thereby. The court has said that the factors to be con- sidered in the determination of reasonableness include: "The amount of harm caused, the foreseeability of the harm which results, the pur- pose or motive with which the possessor acted, and all other relevant matters."113 4. Ground Water The legislature has adopted a permit system for ground water which is to apply in areas designated by the water policy and supply council as areas where the diversion of ground waters exceeds or threatens to exceed the natural recharge.114 In areas where the per- mit system is applicable, no person, corporation, or agency may divert ground waters in excess of one hundred thousand gallons per day for any purpose without first obtaining a permit from the council.115 The council may refuse to grant a permit or may include conditions or limitations on the permits as the council deems necessary to protect and conserve the ground waters of the State. But any refusal to grant a permit is subject to review by the superior court.116 Any person, corporation, or agency who is diverting and using ground waters at the time the permit system becomes applicable to an area may continue to divert the quantity of water he has been diverting without obtaining a permit.117 In areas not covered by the permit system, a person's right to use ground water is governed by decisional law. Originally, the New Jersey court adopted the so-called absolute ownership doctrine of ground water which provided that ground water belonged to the overlying landowner and he could use it in any manner he desired ™Bowlaoy v. Speer, 31 N.I.L.. 351 (1865). "2 Armstrong v. Francis Corporation, 20 N.J. 320, 120 A. 2d. 4 (1956). us Id. "*Sec. 58:4A-1. u* Sec. 58 :4A-2. 118 Sees. 58:4A-2 and 58 :4A-3. !" Sec. 58 :4A-4. |