I’ve been in my suburban home for 16 years, its 40 years old.. New neighborhood just moved in behind and on our first meeting she berated me because my property slopes towards hers and in heavy rains she gets a lot of water. All my major roof drains are buried and come out in my back yard towards her and can’t be directed to my front yard. She wanted me to install a dry well on my property, which I told her was impracticaal given the volume of water and the heavy clay soil. They she wanted me to build a wall to hold back the water and form a pond in my backyard. I told her hat was a non-starter but that I was willing to work with her. At which point she accused me of not wanting to work with her and threatened to report me to the county.
My response was that my yard has the same contours as when laid out 40 years ago, was aproperly permitted and that there was no stopping gravity.
Am I correct in assuming that I have no obligation (other than being a good neighbor) and that she has no grounds for a complaint? I live in Maryland if that matters. I think she’s full of carp, but I’d love to hear other experiences.
I look forward to a wonderful relationship with her.
Thanks, Carlos
Replies
In general, in most (if not all) states she has no ground for complaint. (Not to say that she won't.) So long as you've not changed the drainage pattern since she moved in, and likely it hasn't been changed since the houses were built, the law recognizes gravity as a force of nature that can't be sued.
That said, you might consider constructing a bit of a 'rain garden" on your back property line. This would slow down the flow of water and also provide a nice "fence" between you and the irritating neighbor. We did this shortly after we moved into our (then new) house 34 years ago. This was before the term "rain garden" was invented, but the wife wanted a terraced garden in the back corner, and I saw that doing it in a certain way would help reduce the rush of water down our back property line. It hasn't been perfect, but without it there would be a deep gully back there by now.
Where would the water go?
Is there some place to send it without going into her property or someone elses property, (simply making another enemy that might have a valid complaint)?
Calling the county might be a valid start. They may send an engineer out to help you two work out your problem.
Thanks, I didn't see think she had a valid complaint. In short, she thinks that I should be directing my downspouts to the street in front of my house (not going to happen as it's uphill and I firmly believe in gravity). As to a garden that could absorb the water there really isn't space. It's all complicated by the fact that the yard adjoining mine is a graveyard (no markers, but carried on the county records as such) which also flows downhill to her yard. I mow and maintain it, but digging to create a garden large enough to hold back the water would not be allowed.
Yes, the grading of the property is as it was laid out 40 years ago, to the best of my knowledge.
Her attitude was the big issue, she didn't feel that she should do anything to redirect the water (a swale on her property line?, a drain from her backyard to the street?, ...), and that the only person who should take any steps should be me. In her view I should regrade my entire yard to evenly distribute the water, losing a retaining wall (shown on the original plat, and just replaced) and tun my backyard from a level area to one that drops 4' ober the course of about 30'. She took the attitude that my replacement wall (dry set block on a gravel bed, so it weeps) will make her problem worse compared to the old mortared block wall with no weep holes.
As I sai, I don't see a friendly future with her.
Thanks again
Really no grounds for complaints on older existing stuff, IMO unless there were ordinances requiring otherwise. It's her problem ... she needs to install e.g. a french drain to divert it around her house, not you. Tell her to 'pound sand'. My condolenses on your new neighbor. I don't wish that on nobody. Hopefully she will become a little more educated at the County offices ... but she seems to have the attitude that even if she does, she won't like it or you. She should have gone their first rather than confront you so agressively. But she just doesn't sound like that type of personality.
In some states and w/ new construction, you can't allow rainwater to leave your property. You have to design a drainage swale/system that retains it and allows it to perk back into the ground. This has given us an occasional chuckle as I've seen these next to commercial parking lots ... and it's like they've turned into constructed wetlands! (which you may not be able to eliminate if you decided to reconfigure the parking or expand your building.
Well this works where the peak rainfall tends to be fairly minimal (PacNW) compared to some parts of the country where 1-2" or more in a day is not unusual. ... Probably wouldn't work through the midwest (Loosiana through Illinois and out to the SE.
In some states and w/ new construction, you can't allow rainwater to leave your property.
And in other states it's against the law to hold rainwater on your property.
Which states?
You stated "In some states and w/ new construction, you can't allow rainwater to leave your property."
You must have a specific example in mind. I mean, you wouldn't just make this up to post something, right? Respect your opinion?
I've never heard of such, but always willing to learn something new. I couldn't imagine a law that forbids natural runoff to occur. I understand the provisions for erosion control, construction runoff, etc, but a law that forbids rainwater from leaving your property?
Florida for one, at least for commercial construction.
I think the actual law is to the effect that you can't do anything that would cause rain to run off faster, or for more runoff (vs absorption into the ground) to occur. From a practical standpoint this mostly means that you have to create storm retention ponds to offset any "hard surfacing" you do.
And this applies to "developments", not individual home lots -- a subdivision would have retention ponds installed for the whole area by the developer, and a normal rural residence on acreage would be exempt.
Colorado has that law, and IIRC, they DO presecute for having rain barrels.
I would be careful in presuming you won't be held liable. Natural run off would not be actionable according to my knowledge but unnatural runoff could be. Given that your land has been graded, it could be interpreted in your state to no longer be natural run off. In particular, given your stated facts that you have recently altered the landscaping and that you are directing all of your downspouts in her direction.
Just one more point on "natural drainage." I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear from all the earth moving machinery that I see at residential construction sites that just about every house being built involves some alteration to the "natural drainage," so the rule must recognize that reasonable alterations are inevitable and even desirable. Puttng a house on a lot in and of itself will alter the natural drainage. The difference in elevation between our two properties is reflected in the difference in elevation of the two streets our houses are on. Her street is lower than mine and thus her house and lot are lower as well. It's not like my house was builit on an artificial hill, it just happens to be higher than hers.
I have no idea what the contours of the land were 40 years ago, but I do know that all was permitted and approved by the county back then. Would it be approved as is today? I have no idea, but it was approved back then. I'll also note that the front of my house is only two steps up from the curb height.
CB
Thanks, I don't hink I'm completely out of the woods on this, but I'm hopeful. To be clear, the grading on my property is as it has been for 40 years, since my house was built. I did just build a retaining wall, but it simply replaced one that was there since the time the house was built and had failed (and is shown on the original plat). The replacement wall will have no impact on the drainage.
This woman is my meighbor behind me and one lot over. The lot next to my house is a vacant parcel that is carried on the county records as a burial plot, so it can't be built on. Both my property and the burial lot gently slope down to her property (dropping maybe 6'-8' over 60' (with half of that drop taking place more than 50' from her).
My drainage lines actually intrude on the burial lot, uphill from the complaining neighbor. I'll plead guilty to trespassing on the burial lot, but I also trespass on it to keep it mowed and clean. The owners (if they could be found -- long story) are the only ones who I think would have grounds to complain about my drain lines. The drain line that carries the least amount of water is maybe 15 feet from her property while the one that carrries the most water is a good 45' from her. These drainage lines have been there since I bought the house and given the material they're made of (this funny black pipe that is not plastic) I believe they are original to the construction.
I'll note that I have a detached garage at the rear corner of the yard (away from her property), along with the paving needed to access it, so there is a lot of hard surface that drains downhill But again, all of this was permitted and built 40 years ago.
I only know the law
in my state of residence.
"One premise of Illinois drainage law is the law of natural drainage, which recognizes natural differences in levels of lands. The principle of the law of natural drainage is that landowners must take whatever drainage advantages or inconveniences nature places upon their land. What these advantages or inconveniences are ultimately depends on the level of one’s property in relation to the land around it."
I would expect similar laws to exist in most other states. Your neighbor "must take whatever drainage advantages or inconveniences nature places upon their land."
Maybe she's just upset because she didn't look at the lay of the land before buying.
From an on-line legal site: http://www.carrmaloney.com/elements/newsletters/cm_mar05.htm
B. Maryland
Maryland follows the “civil law” rule regarding surface waters, which states that an upper landowner has the right to have surface waters flow naturally over the lands of lower landowners. See Sainato et ux. v. Potter et ux., 222 Md. 263, 159 A.2d 632 (1960) (citations omitted). In Whitman v. Forney, 181 Md. 652, 659-60 (1943), the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted and applied the “reasonableness of use” rule, which balances the upper landowner’s right to improve and develop its property against the potential harm to the lower landowner. See Whitman, supra. See also Battisto et al. v. Perkins et al., 210 Md. 542, 546, 124 A.2d 288, 290 (1956). Under this rule, the upper landowner has a duty to use reasonable precautions to protect the lower landowner from harm. See Battisto, Sainato, supra. See also Kennedy-Chamberlin Development Co., et al. v. Snure, et al. 212 Md. 369, 376-77, 129 A.2d 142, 146-47 (1957). “What would be reasonable is ordinarily a question for the jury.” Battisto, supra, 210 Md. at 546 (emphasis added); See also, Whitman, 181 Md. at 659-60.
So it seems like in so many cases that should she choose to sue me I may end up in court. The good news is that most of the property abutting hers is a graveyard and she is going to have to sue multiple property owners to seek relief.
CB
Don't you love this,
a perpetually unhappy individual moves into a neighborhood in which no one has ever had problems with drainage, and she's going to sue you.
I'm going to venture that she is divorced, very unhappily so. Never remarried.
As I said, you aren't out of the woods on this as many might have led you to believe regardless of how long the conditions have existed. The question is, what is it going to cost you to try to work with her versus what would it cost you to go to court even if you were eventually vindicated. Some people get their noses out of joint in these types of things fighting for a moral victory or wanting to prove they are "right" that they end up losing the house to pay legal fees.
Yep, recently divorced.
Problem is that I don't really have many (if any) options on changing my yard. Her view was that my downspouts shouldnt even be aimed at her house -- it's not that I aimed them at her house, it just happens to be downhill. And the one that carries the most water is easily 35' from her property line. And her demand that I build a wall to hold back all the water coming off my property was ridiculous. Her view was that I was the one that should be holding on to the water and that she had no obligation to to deal with it.
i have no interest in a legal battle, it can be an empty and expensive victory. For now I'll just wait and see if she takes any action
CB
This is why there
are courts and laws. It appears that you have reality, practicality, gravity and legality on your side. That may make no difference whatsoever. Waiting for the "complaintant" to undertake the expense and trouble of bringing suit is probably the best course of action. The cost and hassle may be enough of a disincentive. Though, you might want to discuss the issue with an attorney in advance.
Interesting thread as I've had drainage problems with my neighbor and live in Maryland.
I tore down an old house and rebuilt on the same foundation. No complaints from the neighbor during construction. In Maryland one needs two permits, the normal building permit of course and a grading permit. Each has it's own set of inspectors and can be signed off on at different times
Anyway we got the occupancy permit and moved back in. The yard was still a construction site at that time with all the silt fencing in place, etc. and the grading permit was still active. Shortly after we move in, we get the yard graded out and sodded, walks and drive put in all in accordance with the grading plan.
The guy next door comes over and says his backyard now has a pond after a rain because, now get this, our roof now has more rainwater fall on it because it's steeper (went from 6:12 to 10:12). Same size footprint.
There's always been a pond in his yard after a rain and I'd give anything to have a photo of it but I don't. But I did go out and buy $80 worth of 4" flexible drain with all the fittings, hooked it up to all the DS's on his side of my house, ran them all out the back away from his house and waited for a big rain. And guess what? A pond appeared after the two big rains I had the contraption in place. Well duhhh!!!!
He lodged a complaint (which in the long run turned out to be a good thing) and I had inspectors practically living out here. He still remained unconvinced (now it was coming from my front yard) so I bought 3 CY's of topsoil and built a small berm (24" wide by 3" tall) the entire length of our 250' shared property line. There is no crossproperty water flow at all now and the pond is still there.
The inspectors let the berm stay (technically it was outside the permit but it's so small and I think they didn't want more complaining. Especially from a guy who is convinced the steeper the roof the more rain falls on it) and made their final inspection immediatly after a 5" rain and signed me off.
I even had the engineer out here and between him, the topsoil and the drain, I spent about $500.
BTW, anybody need 100' of 4" slightly used drain with assorted fittings?
Doug
Interesting to hear that. I think my house was built (1970) before MD required drainage plans. In any case, my house was (to the best of my knowledge) properly permitted when built. But yes, I have this fear that this neighbor will be a long term thorn in my side. Would love to see what her home inspector told her about drainage before she bought the house. In some ways your neighbor sounds like mine. She was convinced that my new wall - dry stack block with gravel backfill which replaced a cinder block wall -- was going to worsen her drainage problems. When I asked her how that could be the case she just got more belligerant and argued that it would divert more water than a block wall with no weep holes. She was convinced that this wall would force more water her way because of its construction. That one stumped me.
Especially odd because where the wall sits is mostly beyond (and much of it below) her property (lots are not a perfect grid and mine only abuts about 15' of her property.) Most of that wall is on the property line with the neighbor next to her and behind me. Most of the water on her property probably comes from two empty lots which slope towards hers (one is a non-buildable lot that is a graveyard, one will some day be built on).
You mentioned you had the engineer out there as an expense you incurred. Was this a private engineer you hired or was the cost part of the fee structure for county inspection? Where in MD are you? I'm in montgomery county.
CB
Annapolis, Md.
I used the same engineer that did my grading plan for permit but it was an extra expense. Like when I found out I needed an elevation certificate required by FEMA (we're in a flood zone) and I had to have them come out here and certify that the house was at the correct elevation. Here the engineers do no inspections as that's all part of the grading permit fee to the county and the county boys do all the inspecting much the same as a county building inspector looks at the house.
Also, I'm not all that sure about the observation earlier in the thread about it being illegal to have water going onto a neighboring residential property. I'm an architect doing all residential and there's new subdivisions going up all the time where water is being shed from one lot to another. For example if one street is 8' higher then the next parallel street it cant be helped. The higher back yard is going to be draining into the back yard abbuting it. Or of the street has a 10% slope, a house on that street will likely be a few feet higher (or lower) then the house next door and there will be side yard water flow.
I think my guy actually had an agenda. Often in older communities, there's an element that doesn't like people doing "teardowns" which my neighborhood is full of.
And I also think your neighbors suggestion of basically a dam is ridiculous. You'd have to have one hell of a storm water retention pond (because that's what it is) to hold even a 2" rainfall. And when when those ponds are required, there's an outfall build into them because here in Maryland a few times every year we get 5" of rain in 12 hours. No pond is going to hold every drop of that back
Anyway, the best of luck.
Doug
I am the one that questioned the legality and the OP actually posted the Maryland law which states the upper landowner must take REASONABLE precautions to protect the lower landowner.
Aside from that, legal or illegal means nothing. You can be completely in the right and still get sued. Your own story shows that. You spent $500 to stop your problem. Can you honestly say that it would have cost you less to be pig headed and go to a lawyer to prove you were right?
All I am suggesting is that the OP think strongly about looking at your method and try to work with the lady before she decides to go legal on him. I highly doubt the problem is going to go away.
Being right and being legal have absolutely no relation to being the most economical especially when you may not be 100% right and 100% legal.
I agree with you entirely. Better to take the high road because these neighbor problems (whatever the cause for discussion) have a tendancy to degenerate.
I think my guy has a little bit of egg on his face now that there's zero cross property water flow and the after a rain pond is still appearing but he's too proud to say so. We're friendly and still talk over the backyard fence which is what I was trying to keep when I did all my stuff but I don't think things will ever be back to what they were before we rebuilt the house.
Doug
I agree on avoiding litigation
Litigation is a losing proposition even if you win. Right now i'm in waiting mode. her threat was to report me to the county. From what I see the county will likely tell her to sue me. Right now there really aren't many options available to me. The water will flow downhill no matter what I do, short of building Hoover dam. And a good chunk of that water is out of my control as it comes from the empty lots.
Over time it may be possible to mitigate how some water flows. My driveway will have to be replaced at some point and with some grading more water will flow out onto the street rather than into the backyard (I had planned to do that anyway). The downspout on the detached garage can be moved to the other end of the structure when I re-rroof - but only after I re-do the driveway or else it will just pool there. But neither of those is happenning this year.
She strikes me as someone who will never be happy, and that nothing I do short of lowering my yard so that it's level with hers will make her happy. That's not a joke as she actually did complain that my flat back yard -- which has been this way since the house was built and has a 4' high x 35' long retaining wall to make it level -- needed to be "adjusted" so that water flowed evenly to all properties. That is a non-starter, especially given that where the wall ends my detached garage begins. Maybe she would want me to take the brick 3-car garage down as well?
Carlos
Quarrelsome neighbors are a curse. I've had to deal with one .... she was so unreasonable that, when I went to her door to tell her that she had a chimney fire, she attempted to have the responding firemen arrest me for tresspassing!
With these folks, you can do no right. Act, and you're wrong. Don't act, and you're still wrong. Why, if you built that dam, she'd be telling folks you were stealing 'her' water. Someone's that contrary, just cut to the chase and get legal advice, contact the city, etc. CYA, all the way. If she continues to hector you, it's time for a restraining order.
Then, should something become necessary on your part, it will be well documented that you acted as the direct result of her demands - no laying the blame on you.
>>>when I went to her door to
>>>when I went to her door to tell her that she had a chimney fire, she attempted to have the responding firemen arrest me for tresspassing!
Unbelievable.... I bet the firemen got a chuckle out of that...
Sorry ... ISPdown for a couple weeks while we moved. Uh Washington and Idaho. Not sure about Oregon. As I've gained an understanding of it, I recall the laws are based on development of hard surfaces on a property ... which increases the burden on remaining property to handle rainwater. Therefore, they require that you limit that increased burden from leaving the property.
It's been interesting. I see e.g. a fast food joint go up and the parking lot, etc. The curb/entrances cannot drain outward into the street. You have to retain the runoff and design a drainage swale to retain the water and allow it to naturally perc back into the ground on site. Actually this can be a good thing as this creates a bit of a filter for pollutants that accumulate in the parking lot and they are better filtered in the swale (so I was told by an official that seemed pretty tuned into this).
Anyway, as you create hardscapes and imperviable surfaces (e.g. a house), you cannot burden your neighbor with the increased runoff from your property. Different requirements are there for e.g. different conditions, slopes, etc. It also has different ways of meeting the requirements as codes often do.