Court Opinion

ID: 9790031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:23.023764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.831686
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
dissenting:
A judgment of dismissal was entered at the conclusion *56of the plaintiffs’ evidence. The trial court failed to view in its most favorable light the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in support of their claim for damages resulting from the alleged over-burdening with water of a natural draw running through their land. This evidence disclosed that the land of defendant Perl-Mack Construction Company was dominant in that it lay on a higher level than plaintiffs’ land; that defendant had developed it, putting in paved streets and curbs and constructing thereon many buildings.
There was testimony showing that the surface waters of about 60 acres in the area had been diverted to the draw. In its original state the draw varied in width from five to ten feet and could carry seven to eight feet of water. As a result of the change in the nature of the land as developed by defendant, and because of the diversion mentioned, water came down the draw in much greater volume and with an increase of acceleration, causing erosion of the draw and washing out a dam and lake. Erosion caused the draw to widen to twenty feet and to deepen to fifteen feet. Irrigation of plaintiffs’ land had become impossible by reason of the destruction of these improvements and augmentation of the flow and increased acceleration.
The natural absorption of rain water by the soil in its original condition being lessened to a great extent by the roofs of dwellings and other structures and pavement, the gathering of these waters and of the water diverted from the 60 acres so increased the volume and speed thereof as to place an additional and more onerous burden on the servient land, a good part of which is the property of the plaintiffs.
Confronted with such testimony, the case should not have been dismissed on motion of the defendant. “A natural or prescriptive water course may be used as a conduit or outlet for the drainage of lands, at least where the augmented flow will not tax the stream beyond its *57capacity and cause a flooding of adjacent land * * *” 28 C.J.S. p. 343 §39 (c).
It is submitted that the law enunciated in Olney Springs Drainage District v. Auckland, 83 Colo. 510, 267 Pac. 605, should have been applied to the facts as presented by the plaintiffs. Whether plaintiffs made a prima facie case depends upon the applicability of the following language:
“A natural water course may be used as a conduit or outlet for the drainage of lands, at least where the augmented flow will not tax the stream beyond its capacity and cause the flooding of adjacent lands. 19 C.J. p. 685, §157. But, as said in Famham on Water and Water Rights, p. 2555, ‘There is no right on the part of one land owner to drain the water from his land over that of his neighbor without the latter’s consent.’ And further, at page 2697 of the same work: ‘One who attempts to gather water into a drain, or to maintain a drain for his own convenience, is bound to take due care that no injury is done by it.’ We agree with these statements as applied to the case at bar.”
As I view it, this case lays down the test under which the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case.
It can hardly be denied that, if Perl-Mack had gone on the land of the plaintiffs with earth-moving equipment and widened the draw ten feet (thereby taking away ten feet of plaintiffs’ land along the course of the draw), plaintiffs would have had a right of action for the damage done. That water rather than such equipment accomplished the removal of land should make no difference. This illustration points up the fallacy of the majority opinion.
The judgment should be reversed.