Can My Neighbor Drain Water Onto My Property? Runoff Laws by State
In most states, a neighbor can be held liable for unreasonably changing how water flows onto your land — redirecting downspouts or a drain at you, regrading, or filling a low area — but water that simply runs downhill the way the land always sent it is usually not something you can sue over. Of the 48 states whose rule we verified, all 48 limit how an owner may alter surface-water flow: 20 use reasonable use, 11 a modified common-enemy rule, 15 the civil-law (natural flow) rule and 2 a mixed rule.
Last checked October 17, 2026 · Each state's rule read in a court opinion or statute we opened, or marked not verified · General information, not legal advice
20
states: Reasonable use
11
states: Modified common enemy
15
states: Civil law (natural flow)
2
states: Mixed rule
2
states not verified
Look up your state
Pick a state for its rule, the leading case or statute, the court's own words, the sources we opened and how confident we are. Links are ?state=NC style, so you can share them.
Pick a state to see which surface-water rule its courts follow, the leading case or statute, the court's own words, the sources we opened and how confident we are.
The two questions that decide most cases
1. Did someone change how the water arrives? Water that crosses the line as a broad sheet, the way the land has always sent it, is natural flow. Courts in nearly every state treat it as part of owning lower ground. Water that now arrives at a point, faster, or in places it never used to — after a neighbor added a downspout outlet, a pipe, fill, a patio, a regraded lawn or a ditch — has been altered, and that is where liability is possible.
2. Which rule does your state use for the change? That decides how a court weighs it:
- Reasonable use (20 states) — Each owner may make reasonable use of their land, even if that changes how surface water flows, but is liable when the interference is unreasonable — courts weigh the purpose and benefit of the change against the harm it causes the neighbor.
- Modified common enemy (11 states) — Surface water is treated as a 'common enemy' every owner may fend off, but with limits: no needless or careless harm, and generally no collecting water and discharging it onto a neighbor in a concentrated flow.
- Civil law (natural flow) (15 states) — Lower land must accept water that flows naturally from higher land, and an owner who changes that natural flow to a neighbor's injury can be liable. Some states soften it, for example for reasonable improvements or normal farming.
- Mixed rule (2 states) — The state's courts apply different rules in different settings, for example one rule for farmland and another for town lots. The state card explains which applies where.
The labels matter less than they seem. Courts under all three main rules have held owners liable for collecting water and discharging it onto a neighbor through an artificial channel. In New York, a modified common enemy state, good-faith improvements are allowed but draining onto a neighbor by pipes, drains or ditches is not. Texas puts it in a statute (Texas Water Code § 11.086). New Jersey's Armstrong v. Francis Corp. (1956), the case most reasonable-use states follow, asks whether the change was reasonable given its purpose and the harm.
Two states split by setting: Alabama applies the civil-law rule outside city limits and a modified common-enemy rule inside them and South Dakota uses the civil-law rule for rural land and reasonable use for urban land.
All 50 states at a glance
The doctrine, leading authority and confidence for every state. Click a state for the full record.
| State | Doctrine | What it means for a neighbor's change | Leading case or statute | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Mixed rule | The rule depends on the setting; see the state card. | Johnson v. Washington, 474 So. 2d 651 (Ala. 1985) | high |
| Alaska | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Braham v. Fuller, 728 P.2d 641 (Alaska 1986) | high |
| Arizona | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Beardsley Land & Investment Co., 36 Ariz. 65, 282 P. 937 (1929) | medium |
| Arkansas | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Boyd v. Greene County, 7 Ark. App. 110, 644 S.W.2d 615 (1983) | high |
| California | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Locklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal. 4th 327 (1994) | high |
| Colorado | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Bittersweet Farms, Inc. v. Zimbelman, 976 P.2d 326 (Colo. App. 1998), cert. denied (1999) | high |
| Connecticut | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Page Motor Co. v. Baker, 182 Conn. 484, 438 A.2d 739 (1980) | medium |
| Delaware | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Weldin Farms, Inc. v. Glassman, 414 A.2d 500 (Del. 1980) | high |
| Florida | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Westland Skating Center, Inc. v. Gus Machado Buick, Inc., 542 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1989) | high |
| Georgia | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Terry v. Catherall, 337 Ga. App. 902, 789 S.E.2d 218 (2016) | high |
| Hawaii | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970) | high |
| Idaho | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Roberts v. Jensen, 167 Idaho 838, 477 P.3d 892 (2020) | high |
| Illinois | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134, 311 N.E.2d 141 (1974) | high |
| Indiana | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Liter's of Indiana, Inc. v. Bennett, 51 N.E.3d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) | high |
| Iowa | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Robinson v. Central Iowa Power Cooperative, No. 24-0298 (Iowa June 6, 2025) | high |
| Kansas | Not verified | Not verified — we couldn't confirm the current rule from a source we opened. | — | — |
| Kentucky | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Klutey v. Commonwealth, Department of Highways, 428 S.W.2d 766 (Ky. 1967) | medium |
| Louisiana | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | La. Civ. Code arts. 655-656 (as amended by Acts 2017, No. 105) | high |
| Maine | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Johnson v. Whitten, 384 A.2d 698 (Me. 1978) | medium |
| Maryland | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Mark Downs, Inc. v. McCormick Properties, Inc., 51 Md. App. 171, 441 A.2d 1119 (1982) | medium |
| Massachusetts | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | DeSanctis v. Lynn Water & Sewer Comm'n, 423 Mass. 112 (1996) | high |
| Michigan | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Wiggins v. City of Burton, 291 Mich. App. 532, 805 N.W.2d 517 (2011) | high |
| Minnesota | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163, 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948) | high |
| Mississippi | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Hall v. Wood, 443 So. 2d 834 (Miss. 1983) | high |
| Missouri | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 859 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. banc 1993) | high |
| Montana | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Winkowitsch v. Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc., 2023 MT 228, 414 Mont. 163, 538 P.3d 1140 | high |
| Nebraska | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Romshek v. Osantowski, 237 Neb. 426, 466 N.W.2d 482 (1991) | medium |
| Nevada | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | County of Clark v. Powers, 96 Nev. 497, 611 P.2d 1072 (1980) | high |
| New Hampshire | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Franklin v. Durgee, 71 N.H. 186, 51 A. 911 (1901) | medium |
| New Jersey | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320, 120 A.2d 4 (1956) | high |
| New Mexico | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Budagher v. Amrep Corp., 97 N.M. 116, 637 P.2d 547 (1981) | high |
| New York | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh, Inc., 3 N.Y.2d 583 (1958) | high |
| North Carolina | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Pendergrast v. Aiken, 293 N.C. 201, 236 S.E.2d 787 (1977) | high |
| North Dakota | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Martin v. Weckerly, 364 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1985) | high |
| Ohio | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | McGlashan v. Spade Rockledge Terrace Condo Dev. Corp., 62 Ohio St.2d 55, 402 N.E.2d 1196 (1980) | high |
| Oklahoma | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Mattoon v. City of Norman, 1980 OK 137, 617 P.2d 1347 | high |
| Oregon | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Bazzaz v. Piculell Group, Inc., 262 Or. App. 519, 325 P.3d 775 (2014) | medium |
| Pennsylvania | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Rau v. Wilden Acres, Inc., 376 Pa. 493, 103 A.2d 422 (1954) | high |
| Rhode Island | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Butler v. Bruno, 115 R.I. 264, 341 A.2d 735 (1975) | high |
| South Carolina | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Lucas v. Rawl Family Ltd. P'ship, 359 S.C. 505, 598 S.E.2d 712 (2004) | high |
| South Dakota | Mixed rule | The rule depends on the setting; see the state card. | Rumpza v. Zubke, 2017 S.D. 49 | high |
| Tennessee | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Blackwell v. Butler, 582 S.W.2d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978) | medium |
| Texas | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Tex. Water Code §11.086 | high |
| Utah | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Sanford v. University of Utah, 26 Utah 2d 285, 488 P.2d 741 (1971) | medium |
| Vermont | Civil law (natural flow) | A neighbor who changes the natural flow onto your land can be liable; natural flow you generally must accept. | Powers v. Judd, 150 Vt. 290, 553 A.2d 139 (1988) | high |
| Virginia | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Mullins v. Greer, 226 Va. 587 (1984) | high |
| Washington | Modified common enemy | Owners may protect their land from surface water, but not carelessly or by channeling it onto a neighbor. | Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wash. 2d 858 (1999) | high |
| West Virginia | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | Morris Associates, Inc. v. Priddy, 181 W. Va. 588, 383 S.E.2d 770 (1989) | high |
| Wisconsin | Reasonable use | A neighbor can be liable if the change to the water's flow was unreasonable and harms you. | State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1, 224 N.W.2d 407 (1974) | high |
| Wyoming | Not verified | Not verified — we couldn't confirm the current rule from a source we opened. | — | — |
Not verified: Kansas and Wyoming. We couldn't confirm their current rule from a source we opened, so we don't state one. “Medium” usually means the leading case is old and we did not find a later one restating it.
What to do, step by step
- Work out whether it is natural or altered flow. Has anything changed on their side, and does the water arrive at a point or along a line? Our neighbor runoff guide walks through the test.
- Document it during rain. Video showing where water crosses the line, with a fixed reference such as a fence post; dated photos of pooling, erosion and damage over several storms; photos of the source from your side (a pipe end, a downspout, new fill); and a note of when it started and what changed around then.
- Talk to the neighbor, then follow up in writing. Many owners don't know where their downspout or drain sends water. A short, friendly note afterwards creates a dated record that they were told.
- Check your city or county rules. Look up the stormwater, grading or downspout section of the municipal code, or call the stormwater or code enforcement office. Some examples we verified are below. An ordinance breach can be enforced by the city without a lawsuit.
- Check the HOA documents and your plat. Covenants, recorded drainage easements and the approved grading plan for a subdivision can decide who may send water where.
- Try mediation. Many counties run community mediation centers for neighbor disputes, and a shared fix such as a swale along the line, written down, is often cheaper than either side's legal bill.
- See an attorney when it matters. If there is damage to a foundation, basement or structure, the neighbor won't engage, or you're weighing a claim, talk to a local real estate or property attorney. Time limits for property-damage claims vary by state and can be short.
Meanwhile, fixes on your own side of the line — a swale or berm, an interceptor French drain, or regrading — can stop the damage while the conversation happens. Avoid simply damming the water back toward the neighbor: under several of these rules that can make you the one who altered the flow.
Example city downspout and drainage rules
State doctrine is only half of it. Many cities say where downspouts and sump pumps may discharge. These are examples we read on the official page; they are not a survey, so check your own city.
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Downspout and sump water must not be aimed at a neighbour's or county property. The county suggests ending backyard and side-yard discharges at least 10 ft from the property line.
“However, the flow should not be directed onto an adjacent property or County property.”
Anne Arundel County, Downspouts and Sump Pump Discharges (county guidance page; Code §13-2-206 on road discharges) · checked October 17, 2026
Chicago, Illinois
Disconnected downspout water must not splash or pond on a neighbour's private property. Extensions must end at least 3 ft from the basement foundation, on ground that slopes away.
“Do not allow water to splash or pond on adjacent private property. Make sure downspout extensions end at least three feet away from basement foundations”
Chicago Department of Buildings, Disconnect Your Downspout (program page) · checked October 17, 2026
Fairfax County, Virginia
New-home grading plans: sump pumps discharge 10 ft from the foundation and, where possible, 10 ft from the property line, without flooding neighbours or flowing straight onto sidewalks.
“Sump pumps must also discharge in a manner that does not create ponding, persistent wet conditions, erosion, structure damage or nuisance flooding on any adjacent properties. Sump pump discharges may not concentrate flow directly onto public sidewalks”
Fairfax County Land Development Services, Subdivision Grading Plan Checklist (LDS Technical Bulletin 20-07) · checked October 17, 2026
La Grange Park, Illinois
The village's disconnection training says downspout extensions should end at least 5 ft from the neighbour's property line and 10 ft from the public sidewalk, with more room on slopes.
“Property lines: Keep the end of your downspout extension at least 5 feet from your neighbors’ property line and 10 feet from the public sidewalk.”
Village of La Grange Park, Downspout Disconnection Training Presentation · checked October 17, 2026
Los Angeles, California
LA lets sump pumps send basement-wall and light-well water to the street. Where a dispersal wall is used on sloping ground, it must sit at least 10 ft up-slope of any property line.
“The dispersal wall shall be located a minimum of 10 feet up-slope of any property line. Greater setbacks may be warranted where irrigation water from landscaped areas drains through the dispersal wall.”
LADBS Information Bulletin P/BC 2017-103, Use of Sump Pumps for Surface and Subsurface Drainage (LABC 7013.10) · checked October 17, 2026
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Under the rainleader ordinance, roof drains tied into the sanitary sewer must be permanently disconnected, and the redirected runoff must not damage neighbouring properties.
“Redirecting stormwater runoff after disconnection must not cause damage to adjacent properties”
Minneapolis Rainleader Ordinance factsheet (Code of Ordinances ch. 511, prohibited discharges to sanitary sewer) · checked October 17, 2026
Portland, Oregon
A disconnected downspout's extension must end at least 5 ft from the neighbour's property line, 10 ft from any neighbouring building and 3 ft from the public sidewalk, with more room on slopes.
“The end of your downspout extension must be: At least 5 feet from your neighbor’s property line. At least 10 feet from structures or buildings on any adjacent property. At least 3 feet from the public sidewalk.”
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, What Is Downspout Disconnection? (program page) · checked October 17, 2026
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Roof drains can't empty onto a public sidewalk. One- and two-family homes may drain to the street or lawn if the water flows away from the building.
“Roof drains shall NOT drain onto a public sidewalk. One and two-family dwellings may drain to the street or lawn, provided it flows away from the building.”
City of Saint Paul Dept. of Safety and Inspections, Roof Drains (summary of MN Building and Plumbing Code requirements) · checked October 17, 2026
What the 50-state check found
- No verified state lets a neighbor do anything at all with surface water. Of the 48 states we verified, every one limits how an owner may alter the flow onto a neighbor.
- Reasonable use is the most common rule (20 states), followed by the civil-law rule (15) and the modified common-enemy rule (11).
- Several states changed rules in the last 70 years, most toward reasonable use: North Carolina in 1977, Missouri in 1993, Wisconsin in 1974 and West Virginia in 1989, among others.
- 38 states are high confidence, read in the opinion or statute and stated expressly there. The rest rest on older cases or need a later case to confirm them, and their cards say so.
- Two not verified (Kansas and Wyoming): we could not confirm their current rule, so we left the doctrine blank rather than guess.
How we researched this, and its limits
- Primary sources first. For each state we looked for the court opinion that adopted or most recently restated the rule, or the statute, and read it — mostly in the Harvard Law School Caselaw Access Project and on state court and legislature sites. Law-firm articles and legal directories were used only to find cases, never as the source.
- Quotes checked word for word. Each state's quote was copied from the opinion or statute and then checked again against the live page before publishing.
- Fixed labels. Every state gets one of 6 labels with fixed wording. Where a state softens its rule, the card says how in its own line rather than inventing a new label. Some states are labelled differently by different summaries — Pennsylvania, Maryland and Nebraska among them — and their cards explain the choice.
- Confidence. High where the opinion or statute states the rule and we found nothing later changing it; medium where the leading case is old or we relied on a later case summarising it; low where sources conflict.
- What it doesn't cover. Streams and other watercourses, groundwater, flooding from public storm sewers, farm drainage districts and state stormwater permits follow different rules. Damages, deadlines and defenses vary by state.
- Not legal advice. This is general information to help you know what to ask. Laws and cases change; the date on each card is when it was last checked. For a real dispute, talk to a licensed attorney in your state.
Open data: neighbor runoff law by state (CSV)
The full table is free to download: neighbor-water-runoff-laws-by-state.csv (one row per state: doctrine and label, modifier, rule summary, leading authority with year and URL, other authorities, quote and its URL, confidence, verification date and source URLs). It is licensed CC BY 4.0: use it for anything with credit to Yard Drainage Fixes and a link to this page.
To cite this page: Yard Drainage Fixes, “Neighbor Water Runoff Laws by State,” checked October 17, 2026, https://www.yarddrainagefixes.com/learning-center/neighbor-water-runoff-laws-by-state
Frequently asked questions
Is it illegal for my neighbor to drain water onto my property?
My neighbor's downspout points at my yard. Is that allowed?
What is the difference between natural runoff and redirected water?
What are the common enemy rule, the civil law rule and the reasonable use rule?
Can I block water coming from my neighbor's yard?
Who pays to fix drainage between two properties?
Should I call the city, my HOA or a lawyer?
Related
- Water runoff from a neighbor's yard — natural vs redirected flow, and fixes on your side of the line
- Downspout drainage problems — how much water one downspout really sends
- Gutter drainage — where downspout water should go, and setback rules
- Yard grading and resloping — when regrading is the fix
- Standing water in the yard — working out where it comes from
- Rainwater collection laws by state — the other water-law question homeowners ask