Court Opinion

ID: 9541189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:23:22.712742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:36.560803
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. However, to the extent the majority opinion might imply that the effluent discharged from Ragers’ aeration system was surface water, I disagree. Surface water, under all accepted definitions, is water derived from totally natural sources, such as falling rains or melting snows, which is diffused over the surface of the ground and which temporarily flows upon the ground along the natural contours of the surface of the land following no defined course or channel. Birdwell v. Moore, (1982) Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 718; Capes v. Barger, (1953) 123 Ind.App. 212, 109 N.E.2d 725; 29 I.L.E. Waters § 51 (1960); 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters § 117 (1975). Effluent discharged from a septic system or aeration system does not, in my opinion, come within traditional definitions of surface water.
An upper landowner may only discharge surface water in natural ways and quantities, and he may not alter natural conditions or by artificial means increase the flow of water upon the lower landowner. Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Marion Construction Corp., (1975) 165 Ind.App. 72, 331 N.E.2d 26, rehearing denied 165 Ind.App. 94, 333 N.E.2d 140, trans. denied; 29 I.L.E. Waters § 53 (1960). Neither is the lower land servient to surface water which is polluted by the acts of the upper landowner. 29 I.L.E. Waters § 54 (1960); 93 C.J.S. Waters § 123 (1956). Here, however, the trial court found that the treated sewer water did not unreasonably increase the *708natural flow, and it was not established that the effluent was noxious; rather, there was evidence that such effluent was clean. The trial court’s findings and judgment are supported by the evidence. Kramer, therefore, did not meet his burden, and I concur in the result.