OCR Text |
Show 648 PENNSYLVANIA a watercourse so formed flows across the lands of several owners, the owner of the land upon which the spring arises has only a riparian right of reasonable use, governed by the riparian principles discussed earlier.79 Conversely, it would seem that, if the waters of a spring do not form a watercourse or do not leave the land of the owner upon which they originate, the landowner may capture and use the waters. The courts have applied ground water principles to underground sources of springs, particularly with references to interference with subterranean flows supplying springs, and these problems are dis- cussed in section 4, dealing with ground water. 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters Diffused surface waters are those which are spread over the sur- face of the ground, usually generated from rain or melting snow, which form no natural channel. If they enter a natural watercourse, however, they then become part of the watercourse and lose their identity as diffused surface waters. The primary concern of the courts with respect to this class of water has been drainage, rather than with rights of capture and use. With respect to drainage, it has been said that the upper land- owner is entitled as a matter of right to allow water to flow from his land onto lower lands according to the pattern of drainage pro- vided by nature.80 Further, a landowner is entitled to make a natural and reasonable use of his land, even if drainage therefrom increases the flow of a natural stream to the detriment of lower landowners.81 Farming and mining operations have been held to be natural and reasonable uses.82 Some uses and activities are not reasonable. A large shopping center development in a rural area was held not to be a natural use of the land.88 An upper owner may not cut an artificial channel to divert the water, nor may he increase the flow for any reason other than for natural and reasonable uses of his land.84 While the lower landowner may not obstruct the natural flow of water from upper lands, he may dam or obstruct the increased flow resulting from the upper landowner's use of his land.85 If, however, such obstruction of the increased flow causes damage to the land of an owner other than the one causing the increased flow, the one causing the obstruc- tion may be held liable.86 Drainage activities are given more latitude by the courts where they are conducted for urban development. An urban property owner may improve his land and change or increase the flow of surface waters from his property, and he will be held liable for damages resulting therefrom only if he acts negligently, although negligence wLeaventcorth v. Prospect Rock Water Co., 8 Kulp 310 (1896). 8° Kauffman v. Qriesemer, 26 Pa. 407, 67 Am. Dec. 437 (1856). ^Leiper v. Keywood-Hall Const. Go., 381 Pa. 317, 113 A. 2d 148 (1955). «s Hayes v. Hinkleman, 68 Pa. 324 (1871). s* Westbury Realty Corp. v. Lancaster Shopping Center Inc., 396 Pa. 383, 152 A. 2d 669 (1959). <* Lucas v. Ford, 363 Pa. 153, 69 A. 2d 114 (1949). 86Miller v. Laubach, 47 Pa. 154, 86 Am. Dec. 52 (1864). ««Martin v. Riddle, 26 Pa. 415 (1856). |