OCR Text |
Show RHODE ISLAND 659 lated primarily to the disposal of these waters rather than the right to their use. However, it would seem that a property owner may use diffused surface water as he sees fit, as long as it remains on his land.82 With respect to the disposal of diffused surface water, Rhode Is- land follows the common enemy rule. Under this rule, the landowner may improve his property and drain surface water from his land even though the drainage pattern is altered by these improvements, resulting in injury to adjoining landowners.83 However, a landowner incurs liability if he accumulates the water by artificial means and then discharges it in large quantities onto an adjoining landowner to his injury.84 A statutory procedure also exists to allow a landowner to drain surface waters from his land across adjoining lands by means of a ditch or drain upon payment of just compensation.85 If the parties cannot agree as to the mode of drainage or the amount of damages, they may petition the town council of the town in which the property is located for a resolution of the matter. Any person aggrieved by the determination of the town council may ap- peal to the court.86 4..Ground Water There are very few cases dealing with ground water in Rhode Is- land, and there is no state regulation of the acquisition of ground water rights. The Rhode Island court has held that a person has absolute owner- ship of ground water that percolates through his soil and he may use it or dispose of it as he wishes, but he may not purposefully or negligently interfere with his neighbor's use of the ground water.87 The court has also recognized the distinction between subterranean waters in a well-defined channel or stream and percolating waters- at least for purposes of protecting the quality of ground waters against pollution.88 The court announced that an overlying landowner has the same obligation to protect the quality of a subterranean stream as he does with regard to surface streams,89 but is not liable for the pollution of percolating ground waters unless the person claiming injury can demonstrate that the pollution was the result of negligence on the part of the person controlling the polluting substance.90 Beyond these declarations, there have been no decisions defining the rights of overlying landowners to use ground water, but it is assumed that the rights in subterranean streams are governed by the same princi- ples which apply to surface watercourses, while the overlying land- owner can use percolating water as he sees fit. ^Buffum v. Harris, 5 R.I. 243 (1858). &Almy t. Coggeshall, 19 R.I. 549, 36 Atl. 1124, (1896) ; Murray v. Allen, 20 R.I. 263, 38 Atl. 497 (1897) ; O'Donnell v. White, 24 R.I. 482, 53 Atl. 633 (1902). tinman v. Tripp, 11 R.I. 520 (1877) ; Johnson v. White, 26 R.I. 207, 58 Atl. 658 (1904) ; Benard v. Woonsochet Bobbin Co., 23 R.I. 581, 51 Atl. 209 (1902) ; Klowan t. Howard, 83 R.I. 155, 113 A. 2d 876 (1955). «B Sec. 46-20-1. 88 Sees. 46-20-2 to 46-20-4. ^Buffum v. Harris, 5 R.I. 243 (1858). ssjJose v. Socony-Vacuum Corp., 54 R.I. 411, 173 Atl. 627 (1934). 89 Id. *>Id.j Rose v. Socony-Vacuum Corp., 67 R.I. 399, 24 A. 2d 422 (1942). 499-242-73------43 |