Buffalo Sewer Authority v. Town of Cheektowaga, 20 N.Y.2d 47 (1967)
An upper landowner is liable when it artificially collects and concentrates surface waters, discharging them in quantities beyond a natural outlet’s capacity onto a lower landowner’s property.
Summary
The Buffalo Sewer Authority sued the Town of Cheektowaga to enjoin the town’s discharge of storm water into the city’s sewer system. The town, an upper landowner, constructed a storm drainage system that concentrated surface water and discharged it into the city’s system, causing sewage to back up into city streets and homes. The court held that the town was liable because it artificially collected and concentrated surface waters, discharging them in quantities beyond the city’s system’s capacity. The injunction was modified to require the city to make a fair offer for joint action in storm water disposal.
Facts
The Town of Cheektowaga’s Drainage District No. 1 was adjacent to the City of Buffalo. Historically, surface waters from the town drained into the city. In 1958, the town constructed a storm drainage system for Tudor Place, which included receiving basins and pipes. The Buffalo Sewer Authority warned the town that connecting this system to the city’s combined sanitary and storm water sewage system would create a nuisance. The town connected the Tudor Place system without permission, resulting in sewage discharge into city streets and homes due to the city’s system being overburdened.
Procedural History
The trial court ruled in favor of the Buffalo Sewer Authority, issuing an injunction against the town. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision without opinion. The Town of Cheektowaga then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an upper landowner (the Town of Cheektowaga) is liable for damages when it constructs a drainage system that artificially collects and concentrates surface waters, discharging them onto a lower landowner’s property (the City of Buffalo) in quantities exceeding the capacity of the natural outlet, thereby causing a nuisance.
Holding
Yes, because the town artificially collected and concentrated large quantities of surface waters and discharged them into an outlet on the city’s land that was unable to carry them off. The court modified the order to direct a mandatory injunction contingent upon a fair offer by the city for joint action in storm water disposal.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the distinction between the general drainage of surface waters and the use of natural waterways for discharge. While landowners have rights to improve their property regarding surface water, they cannot use pipes or ditches to drain water onto another’s property. Quoting Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh, the court reiterated that owners have equal rights to improve their properties, but cannot drain water onto another’s property using pipes or ditches.
The court distinguished this situation from one involving a natural watercourse, stating that even if the open ditch in question were considered a natural watercourse, the town could not artificially concentrate and discharge waters into the stream in quantities beyond its natural capacity. The court cited Byrnes v. City of Cohoes and other cases supporting this principle.
The court found the town’s actions inappropriate because they did not involve merely preventing surface water from flowing onto its land, but rather actively collecting and concentrating water and discharging it onto the city’s property. The court recognized the need for a solution due to increasing suburban populations and real estate developments. The court modified the injunction, mandating a fair offer by the city for joint action with the town regarding storm water disposal. The court highlighted that “the town is left at the mercy of the city” without such a provision.
The court remitted the matter to the Special Term, empowering it to determine the fairness and reasonableness of any proposals submitted by the city and to issue the injunction if the town refused to cooperate in a plan submitted by the city. The court retained jurisdiction until a plan went into operation, reflecting the equitable powers of the court to grant or withhold relief based on reasonable and equitable conditions.