[brief] Nearly ten years later, Defendants have caused a completely distinct and unrelated nuisance.  Around April 2021, Defendants installed the Belgian block curb around their driveway with drainage gaps at the rear corners.  [Pa48 ¶ 42; Db8].  After Defendants installed this new drainage system for their driveway, [...] discovered an unusual accumulation and pooling of water on his property, particularly after heavy rainstorms.  [Pa339 ¶ 20].  Based on his personal observations, [...] certified:  This type of pooling of water on my property had not occurred since I installed additional drainage on my property and it began in conjunction with modification [...] made to their front yard and driveway, which included repaving their driveway and the installation of Belgian block curbing with an opening on the Southerly side of their driveway near the border with my property which funnels water towards, and onto, my property.  [Pa339 ¶ 21].  [...]’s unrebutted personal observation—corroborated by Defendants’ expert¹—prove that water drained through the rear northeast gap in the curb around Defendants’ driveway, standing alone, is competent evidence that is sufficient to establish this first element of the water nuisance claim; no expert testimony is required.  Hopler v. Morris Hills Reg ’l Dist., 45 N.J. Super. 409, 415 (App. Div. 1957).  Furthermore, it is undisputed that Defendants’ new drainage system materially altered the flow of surface water.  Originally, a railroad tie planter ¹ Defendants’ own expert conceded that “the stormwater runoff was directed toward the left-rear corner of the driveway” [Pa290] because “the driveway sloped down from the front corner of the garage toward the left-rear corner of the driveway at a slope of 2.5% over a 40 foot span” [Pa287].  box located at the rear northeast corner of the driveway had blocked the flow of water from reaching [...]’s property at that location, causing the water to instead flow through Defendants’ backyard into the brook at the back end of their property.  [Pa340 ¶ 29].  As [...] noted, survey work revealed that “a few railroad ties along the easterly side and flowing off the driveway at grade on the southerly end of the driveway together with the land contours indicate that most of the water ran southerly to the brook. ”  [Pa365-366; see Pa369 (prior survey showing original flow path)].  This fact is undisputed, as Defendant [...] admitted that, before modifying the driveway, he had observed water flow “[f]rom the top of the street down to the back of the driveway” and “go towards the back of [his] property. ”  [Pa213 at 55:2–19].  Defendants removed the railroad tie planter box and installed a solid curb along the rear of the driveway that collected the surface water and directed the flow of that water to the drainage gap at the northeast corner, through which the water flowed onto a different part of [...]’s property.  As [...] explained: “A depressed portion of the curbing acts as a funnel directing the water toward the Unger property and blocks the water from its original course toward the brook. ”  [Pa366].  This newly-created flow path is undisputed, as Defendants’ own expert conceded that he “agrees that a portion of the stormwater deposited along the front yard and driveway of [...] would follow the path indicated by [...]. ”  [Pa293 (emphasis added)].  To summarize, because Defendants had altered the pre-existing discharge of surface water by conducting it into new channels in unusual quantities and to a different part of [...]’s property, the first element of the water nuisance claim has been established.