If a neighbor's water runoff damages your property, are they liable in NY?
Can you sue your neighbor? Sure. But you may not win.
What are NY's laws on water runoff?
New York State law on the topic has evolved through the years.
In the old days, under English common law, water was once viewed as a common enemy. And as with any enemy, homeowners had the right to defend themselves by, for instance, digging ditches to redirect the natural flow of water away from their property even if water might flow onto someone else's property.
Stay safe Tips for motorists to stay safe during flooding. Watch the video.
But development creates more conflicts and courts were increasingly being asked to act as a referee. Here's how Darrell W. Harp, the former chief counsel to the state Department of Transportation, described it in a 2015 report for the Cornell Local Roads Program, New York State Local Technical Assistance Program Center:
'The 'common-enemy rule' was generally modified so that a lower landowner was not normally entitled to cast back surface waters by damming a natural watercourse, and an upland owner was not entitled to artificially collect surface waters and discharge them in a mass upon the land below to its damage (e.g., by piping or draining into ditches so that surface waters released on lower land caused erosion or flooding).'
Simply put, the law changed through the years to consider the damage that altering the natural flow of water could have on a neighbor's property.
A 'reasonable' standard on where you're sending water
'The courts pretty much said let's be reasonable about this,' said David Orr, who heads the Cornell Local Roads Program and fields these sorts of questions from highway departments and homeowners.
That led to the "reasonable use" standard. Basically, you should not knowingly make decisions on your property that'll cause water to flow onto your neighbor's property.
Here's Orr's take on what's reasonable and what's not:
'If I've got a piece of property and I want to put a road to go up to the back half of it, do I have a right to do that. Well, yeah, you do. Do I have a right to cross a stream? Yeah, but I might need to put a culvert in. In fact, there may be a requirement from an environmental standpoint… If I create a gulley that washes into somebody's property, no. If I back water up onto somebody else's property or keep the water down? No, that's not good either. That's the reasonableness factor.'
DIY: Check out deals from Home Depot for home improvement, repairs, and everything else by clicking here
Groundbreaking decision in water runoff dispute
The leading New York case on the topic — Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh — came out of the village of Pelham in Westchester County in 1958.
In that case a landowner put a gas station on his property, causing water to seep into a neighbor's basement.
The lot was raised and blacktopped, which sped the flow of water onto a neighbor's property, damaging property in the basement, according to the decision.
The gas station owner did not install pipes, drains or ditches and acted in good faith to improve his property. The lawsuit was tossed.
As Harp writes: 'The thing to remember is that reasonable blacktopping, paving, grading, improvements, or construction done in good faith that disturbs the natural flow of surface water drainage to the damage of a lower owner is not actionable unless the drainage is artificially caused to be collected in a mass, as in a pipe, ditch or drain.'
Of course, facts matter. Some cases are closer calls than others. Best to consult an attorney.
Thomas C. Zambito covers energy, transportation and economic growth for the USA Today Network's New York State team. He's won dozens of state and national writing awards from the Associated Press, Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Deadline Club and others during a decades-long career that's included stops at the New York Daily News, The Star-Ledger of Newark and The Record of Hackensack. He can be reached at tzambito@lohud.com.
This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: 'Common-enemy rule': Can homeowners sue neighbors for water runoff damage?
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
If a neighbor's water runoff damages your property, are they liable in NY?
Your neighbor decides to blacktop a driveway once covered with grass that acted as a sponge, sopping up rainwater. But after a deluge, water comes rushing into your basement. Can you sue your neighbor? Sure. But you may not win. What are NY's laws on water runoff? New York State law on the topic has evolved through the years. In the old days, under English common law, water was once viewed as a common enemy. And as with any enemy, homeowners had the right to defend themselves by, for instance, digging ditches to redirect the natural flow of water away from their property even if water might flow onto someone else's property. Stay safe Tips for motorists to stay safe during flooding. Watch the video. But development creates more conflicts and courts were increasingly being asked to act as a referee. Here's how Darrell W. Harp, the former chief counsel to the state Department of Transportation, described it in a 2015 report for the Cornell Local Roads Program, New York State Local Technical Assistance Program Center: 'The 'common-enemy rule' was generally modified so that a lower landowner was not normally entitled to cast back surface waters by damming a natural watercourse, and an upland owner was not entitled to artificially collect surface waters and discharge them in a mass upon the land below to its damage (e.g., by piping or draining into ditches so that surface waters released on lower land caused erosion or flooding).' Simply put, the law changed through the years to consider the damage that altering the natural flow of water could have on a neighbor's property. A 'reasonable' standard on where you're sending water 'The courts pretty much said let's be reasonable about this,' said David Orr, who heads the Cornell Local Roads Program and fields these sorts of questions from highway departments and homeowners. That led to the "reasonable use" standard. Basically, you should not knowingly make decisions on your property that'll cause water to flow onto your neighbor's property. Here's Orr's take on what's reasonable and what's not: 'If I've got a piece of property and I want to put a road to go up to the back half of it, do I have a right to do that. Well, yeah, you do. Do I have a right to cross a stream? Yeah, but I might need to put a culvert in. In fact, there may be a requirement from an environmental standpoint… If I create a gulley that washes into somebody's property, no. If I back water up onto somebody else's property or keep the water down? No, that's not good either. That's the reasonableness factor.' DIY: Check out deals from Home Depot for home improvement, repairs, and everything else by clicking here Groundbreaking decision in water runoff dispute The leading New York case on the topic — Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh — came out of the village of Pelham in Westchester County in 1958. In that case a landowner put a gas station on his property, causing water to seep into a neighbor's basement. The lot was raised and blacktopped, which sped the flow of water onto a neighbor's property, damaging property in the basement, according to the decision. The gas station owner did not install pipes, drains or ditches and acted in good faith to improve his property. The lawsuit was tossed. As Harp writes: 'The thing to remember is that reasonable blacktopping, paving, grading, improvements, or construction done in good faith that disturbs the natural flow of surface water drainage to the damage of a lower owner is not actionable unless the drainage is artificially caused to be collected in a mass, as in a pipe, ditch or drain.' Of course, facts matter. Some cases are closer calls than others. Best to consult an attorney. Thomas C. Zambito covers energy, transportation and economic growth for the USA Today Network's New York State team. He's won dozens of state and national writing awards from the Associated Press, Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Deadline Club and others during a decades-long career that's included stops at the New York Daily News, The Star-Ledger of Newark and The Record of Hackensack. He can be reached at tzambito@ This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: 'Common-enemy rule': Can homeowners sue neighbors for water runoff damage? Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
What to know about assistance and flood recovery in San Angelo: FEMA declares disaster
Tom Green County and San Angelo residents who were affected by the devastating floods on July 4 will now be able to apply for FEMA individual assistance support after President Donald Trump added the county to the Major Disaster Declaration on Friday, as previously reported by the Standard-Times. Now that over a week has passed since the floods, here is what is next for San Angelo and the residents affected by the flooding. Damage Resource Center The Damage Resource Center at PaulAnn Church has moved to the Concho Valley Transit annex building at 506 N. Chadbourne St. Resources will be available to the public from noon to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. More: Police, City of San Angelo issue order of restricted areas due to flooding More: San Angelo pets in need after historic flood The center aims to be a comprehensive, one-stop resource for flood survivors to access critical support and begin their recovery process. The following services will be offered at the new Damage Resource Center: Federal Emergency Management Agency application assistance Help filling out individual assistance paperwork FEMA case worker support Guidance on documentation requirements Translation services for non-English speakers Intake services for local assistance programs Connection to local support agencies Information about emergency housing options Guidance on utility assistance Small Business Administration loan information The San Angelo Community Organizations Active in Disaster will continue to provide immediate and long-term assistance to those affected by the flood through the new DRC at the Concho Valley Transit annex building. The COAD will provide referrals to specific services, information about cleanup efforts and guidance on insurance claims. The coalition is made up of nonprofits, businesses, government agencies, faith-based groups and volunteer organizations. For residents needing household items, the Concho Valley Turning Point warehouse will be another distribution center for those items while the Concho Valley Regional Food Bank will be a facility providing food assistance. There will also be essential household items available at the Concho Valley Transit annex building. Transportation to the DRC, Concho Valley Turning Point, and Concho Valley Regional Food Bank will be provided by COAD. Financial Assistance Financial recovery is being managed by the San Angelo Area Foundation, which has already raised over $1 million through 800 individual donations. An emergency grant program is being developed to support affected residents. 'Now that may sound like a lot of money,' Mike Lewis, president and CEO of the San Angelo Area Foundation, said. 'That may sound great. On the first Tuesday in May, our community raised $4 million in 24 hours for a lot of nonprofits called San Angelo Hands, so I know we can raise more money.' Individuals are encouraged to continue donating money to the San Angelo Area Foundation online. Community officials said the FEMA emergency grants have not started yet, and more information will be released as soon as possible. Clean-up efforts COAD has already begun helping residents affected by the flooding by cleaning their homes and businesses. Galilee CDC is now overseeing the cleanup efforts. By analyzing data from submitted Individual State of Texas Assessment Tool Surveys, they aim to compile a comprehensive list of homes that still require cleaning. COAD and Galilee CDC identified six teams vetted as approved cleaning organizations: TLC in San Angelo, Rubicon, Samaritans, Minutemen Disaster Relief, God's Pit Crew and Texans on Mission. The organizations will be in Tom Green County this weekend to help with ongoing efforts. Even though local, state and national organizations are coming to assist in cleanup, city and community officials urge residents to continue helping clean debris from homes and to coordinate with COAD and Galilee CDC. The CBCAA contacted local utility companies in the area and made arrangements not to disconnect any services. Residents are still urged to contact their utility providers. Paul Witwer covers high school sports and Angelo State University sports for The San Angelo Standard-Times. Reach him at sports@ Follow him on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, @Paul_Witwer. This article originally appeared on San Angelo Standard-Times: FEMA declares disaster: San Angelo launches flood recovery plan

Miami Herald
5 days ago
- Miami Herald
Colorado wildfires: Crews bring largest fire under 34% containment as growth slows
DENVER - Fire crews working across western Colorado made more progress containing and slowing the growth of several wildfires Thursday. The largest fire of the bunch - the Turner Gulch Fire near Gateway - is now 34% contained, a sharp improvement from 9% reported Thursday morning. The wildfire's growth also slowed, increasing by 179 acres to 15,179 acres burned. The South Rim fire, near Montrose, increased only slightly, though it remains at 0% containment. The Sowbelly fire near Delta remained at 2,274 acres burned as of Friday morning, though a fire map of the blaze hasn't been updated since Thursday evening. Containment is also unchanged, at 16%. Crews also made progress containing the Utah side of the Deer Creek fire. Collectively, the fires have burned more than 23,000 acres in Colorado since they ignited last week. Another brush fire - the Cottonwood Flat fire - was reported Thursday afternoon, prompting evacuation orders for residents with a mile of 1800 County Road 309. The fire was burning on that county road, south of I-70 between Rulison and Parachute. The nearby Highway 6 was reopened late Thursday night, the Garfield County Sheriff's Office said. Turner Gulch fire and Wright Draw fire near Gateway Firefighters have made more progress in containing the state's largest wildfire, bringing the Turner Gulch blaze to 34% containment as of Friday morning, primarily on the fire's western edge. That's up from 9% Thursday morning. The fire has now burned 15,179 acres, a slower rate of growth than the 1,000 acres reported burned between Wednesday and Thursday. "Today was a good day," fire officials wrote on Facebook on Thursday night, adding that crews would spend the night "removing vegetation along the east side" of the fire. Still, the Mesa County Sheriff's Office on Thursday night issued a pre-evacuation notice for private land within the Uncompahgre National Forest from Forest Road 406 to 409. Officials have also launched an interactive evacuation map for the fires. To the west, the nearby Wright Draw fire held steady at 448 acres for the third consecutive day, albeit with 0% contained. The two fires are still burning around Highway 141, which is still closed between 7.40 Road and 16.10 Road at mile marker 124, according to the state Department of Transportation. Deer Creek fire near Paradox The wildfire burning near the Colorado-Utah border had burned 15,655 acres as of Friday morning, with 11% contained - up from 7% Thursday. The bulk of the blaze has burned in Utah, though more than 1,800 acres of Colorado land has been torched. In a Thursday night update, fire officials said on Facebook that increased cloud cover and humidity, plus light winds, helped calm the fire's behavior and contributed to additional containment on the fire's western edge. Friday's forecast called for "a range of possibilities," the officials wrote, with clouds and rain expected by mid-morning. Fire maps showed Thursday that the Deer Creek fire was burning on a section of Colorado more than 2 miles long and wide. South Rim fire near Montrose The 4,227-acre South Rim fire grew 48 acres Thursday, another day of slow growth for a fire that ignited by lightning strike last weekend. The fire, which is burning the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, is still at 0% containment as of Friday morning, according to fire maps. The national park remains closed to the public. None of the previously issued evacuation orders have been lifted, and several areas west, south and southeast of the fire - including the Bostwick Park area - remain under evacuation orders, according to the evacuation map. -------------- Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.