and prudentmanner, esoapeliabilityregardlessof the geographyof the land. See JeffersonCot&y DrainageDistrictv. McFadden,supra.
The old commonlaw rule was that the governmentalagencymust aotuallytake the propertyfor a publio use before the individualwould be entitledto oompensationqUnder that rule, no recoverycouldbe had for mere ocllsequential injury to laad.
Today the rule is different. As set forth in 10 Ruliag Case Law, at p. 167, the generalrule isr Hon. FWerettH. Cain, page 3 (C-2622)
"It is generallyheld that Amy definitephysicalinjury to land or 99 iaVUSiOnof it oognisableto the seases,depreciatingits market value, is a damage in the aonstitutionalsease,regardlessof whether it is such an imrjuryas a neighboringownermight i~flicrt without liability at common law."
The Cormrission of Appealsin the ca8e of JeffersonfiuntyDrainage Distrirtv. Langham,supra,has definitelyplacedTexas in Uat aptegory of juriadiotionswhich are liberalin their interpretationof what mnsti- ~. tutes propertydamage iB the oonstitutionalsense.
In the Langham case the drainagedistriatmadecertain improvements. They straightened,deepened,and cleanedthe aaturaldrainagesystem. The result of this projectwas to make @niBtiff'S land sore subjectto ovs~- flow and the overflowwaters would rise to greaterheights." This land's situs ~8s outsidethat of the distriat's.
The Court held the districtliable in damagesin these terms:
"Undoubtedlyan aotion lies againstthe drainagedistriotin favor of a citizenwhose propertyis damaged as a result of the maintensnoeof drain- age improvementsmade by the distriot. . . The action lies even thou&r no negligenoeoathe prt of the districtoccurs in respectof the con- structionor mainteaanoeof the improvements."
To the defendant'soontentioathat the damagenas damnumabsque injuria,the Court repliedthat the distriotdid, to a certainextent, have the right to oolleotsurfacewater within its territorialarea and disohargeit into a naturaloutlet. LUt this right is not unqualified.
In conclusion,and a8 our conclusion,ue adoptthe followingsec- tion of the Court'sdecisionin the Langhamease*
"One owning land on a water cour8emay by ditchesand drains turn into it all the surfaoewater that muld naturallydrain there,but he ma not thus dischargeinto the water ooursemore water than it f and thus burden his lower neighborwith more than is reasonable." fEi&coriag ours)
We note that you inquire*ether ChmabereCountywould be Liable in damagesto JeffersonOounty landownersin the Over& their lands were damagedby the propesedimprovements.We are aware of no expresslaw or laws authorizingany countyinthis State to undertakeany programas outlinedin your letter. Article 8997,VernonlsAnnotatedCivil Statutes, provides for the establishmeartof drainagedi&triotswithinthe counties. Cbviou~ly,the frsgislature, bythe enaatmat of that statutoryp~rovisions, intendedto providea method whereby countiesmight effector improve drainage. That method providedby the Legislatureshouldbe followed where applioable. Hon. Everett Ii. Cain, page 4 (O-2622)
Rowever,in whateverform you iatimdedto Pram your question,the liahilityfordamagaeshall be govamed ly those rules aunounwd in the foregoing3nolmith&andiag,whetheryou oomsiderthem a8 countsliabilities or drainagedistrictlialdlities. This is true for reasoathat drainage distriotsaud oounties"atandoa the same Pooting'and their liabilities are adjudioaiadaoeordimgly. Jones V. Jeffersoni&m&y DrainageDistrict, suprajWharton CouatyDrainageDistrictV. Rigbee (Civ.App.), 149 S.W. 381 (Wit ref.),9 R.C. L. 650. We do not intendaqy implicationthat ChamlmrsCountywould be authorizedto inaugurateor carry out the outlinedprogma in its individ- ual oapaoitya6 a county.
Trustingthat the foregoingaffordsan ausmr to your questions, we remain
Very truly yours
ATTORNEYGEtJERbL OF TEXAS
By /IX/%. J. Faming
WI.J.F~nning GVTrRSlOgW Assistant
By /e/ Grundy Williams APPRCV-RD SEP 6,194O GruudyWilliams /s/Gerald C. ku ATTORNEYGENFRAL,OF TEXAS APPRovEiD Opinion Committee