Opinion ID: 1980020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether surface water loses its character as such when it accumulates on a man-made surface.

Text: The Camerons first contend that the melted snow and rain which caused damage to the property in their basement was not surface water because it did not lie or flow naturally on the earth's surface. They point out that the water was on their patio before it overflowed and entered the basement. They assert that because the patio is a man-made structure, and not the earth's surface, the water on the patio was not surface water. We disagree. Although we have found no District of Columbia authority resolving this issue, the courts of other jurisdictions have held that water which has collected on a man-made structure or surface is surface water. According to those courts, the distinguishing characteristics of surface water are that it has been derived from falling rain or melting snow, that it lies or flows naturally, and that it does not follow a defined course or channel. See Bringhurst v. O'Donnell, 124 A. 795 (Del.Ch.1924); Sherwood Real Estate and Inv. Co. v. Old Colony Ins. Co., 234 So.2d 445 (La.Ct.App. 1970). In Bringhurst, a case involving the accumulation of water on the roof of a building, the defendants contended that surface water is only such water as touches the surface of the ground. The court held, however, that the phrase surface water embraces waters derived from falling rains and melting snows. No case has been cited which holds that in order to become surface water the rains must fall, or the snows must melt[,] upon the soil of the earth. In the case of a building erected on land, the roof is to be regarded as an artificial elevation of the earth's surface. When it intercepts the falling rain or snow, it therefore gathers surface waters. Bringhurst, supra, 124 A. at 797; accord, Nathanson v. Wagner, 118 N.J. Eq. 390, 179 A. 466, 468 (1935) (quoting from and following Bringhurst ). In Sherwood Real Estate Co., the court, citing Bringhurst and Nathanson, likewise held that water collected on a roof is surface water. In the court's view, [i]t would indeed be a strained interpretation to hold that surface water is confined to that portion of rain water which falls directly on the ground. 234 So.2d at 448. We agree with these courts. [4]