Bretz v. Central Bucks School District
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 116
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Landowner owns 31-acre Datestone Farm downstream from District’s 66-acre school properties.
- District expanded high school (1997-98) and middle school (1998-99), adding detention basin, berm, and a 36-inch pipe.
- Effluent redirected onto Landowner’s property increased the duration and total volume of stormwater discharge.
- Landowner sought injunctive relief, redesign of stormwater management, and damages for trespass.
- Trial evidence showed pre- and post-construction drainage patterns; SALDO compliance disputed.
- Trial court reopened record to address science-wing refinements and later entered judgment for District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common enemy rule exceptions apply | Landowner argues District diverted/concentrated water via artificial means. | District contends no diversion or unreasonable change; SALDO compliance. | Reversed in part: improper application of common enemy rule. |
| Whether SALDO provisions were violated | Landowner contends SALDO 9.23A(4), (B)(2), (B)(3) were violated by detention basin changes. | District asserts compliance with SALDO since discharge location unchanged. | Remanded for new determination; court erred in applying SALDO standards. |
| Whether District’s detention basin altered natural drainage | Water collected and concentrated due to detention basin and berm. | Change was natural progression; no alteration of discharge points. | Found error: District concentration/diversion constitutes alteration. |
| Whether injunctive relief was valid despite land development approval | Equitable relief may issue for nuisance notwithstanding zoning approvals. | Approval forecloses injunctive relief. | Remanded; injunction may still be available absent complete remedy. |
| Whether reopening the record was proper | Affirmed: reopening permissible to achieve fair adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rau v. Wilden Acres, Inc., 376 Pa. 493, 103 A.2d 422 (1954) (liability for artificial diversion or concentration of surface water)
- LaForm v. Bethlehem Twp., 499 A.2d 1373 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985) (upper landowner liability for artificial diversion or unreasonable change)
- Leiper v. Heywood-Hall Construction Co., 381 Pa. 317, 113 A.2d 148 (1955) (common enemy rule: liability for artificial diversion or unnecessary increase)
- Marlowe v. Lehigh Township, 64 Pa. Cmwlth. 587, 441 A.2d 497 (1982) (injury from artificially diverted water may arise from increased volume or force)
- Fazio v. Fegley Oil Co., 714 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (adoption of LaForm principles in SALDO context)