J.M. McMaster and M.E. McMaster, h/w v. The Township of Bensalem, 161 A.3d 1031

James and Mary McMaster own a ~6.25-acre residential property in Bensalem, PA, composed of three tax parcels; the wooded northern parcels lie in a floodplain and are not readily developable.
In 1988–89 the Township installed storm drainage that unintentionally discharged onto the McMasters’ northern wooded parcels, causing recurring flooding (but not flooding of the house or primary lawn); flooding recurred until the Township installed corrective piping in 2010.
The McMasters sued in 2006 seeking appointment of viewers, alleging the redirected stormwater was a de facto taking; they later amended to also allege the 2010 pipe installation was a de facto or de jure taking.
The trial court sustained the Township’s preliminary objections as to the 1988–89 redirection claim (finding no de facto taking) but overruled objections as to the 2010 pipe installation (appointing viewers); the Township did not appeal the 2010 ruling.
On appeal the Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the 1980s–90s redirection was a de facto taking and whether consequential damages were recoverable under the Eminent Domain Code.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Township’s 1988–89 redirection of stormwater onto the property constituted a de facto taking	McMaster: redirection caused substantial, recurring flooding of northern parcels and loss of trees, depriving use/enjoyment — thus de facto taking	Township: flooding was negligent, affected only wooded, intermittently used area, did not substantially deprive use/enjoyment; remedied in 2010	Court: No de facto taking — flooding resulted from negligent misdirected discharge, did not substantially deprive use/enjoyment, was abatable/remediable
Whether consequential damages for the flooding are recoverable under the Eminent Domain Code absent a taking	McMaster: seeks consequential damages under the Code for property harm from Township actions	Township: no applicable Code category (no change in road grade, no permanent access interference, no injury to surface support)	Court: Consequential damages under Section 612/714 available only for change of grade, permanent interference with access, or injury to surface support; none alleged here, so no recovery in eminent domain proceeding

In re Borough of Blakely, 25 A.3d 458 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (defines de facto taking standard: substantial deprivation of use/enjoyment)
Colombari v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 951 A.2d 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (surface-water takings require diversion or change in quality/quantity of flow)
Snap-Tite, Inc. v. Millcreek Township, 811 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (de facto taking factors and burden on landowner)
Genter v. Blair County Convention & Sports Facilities Authority, 805 A.2d 51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (distinguishes negligence-based harms from de facto takings)
In re Condemnation by Department of Transportation, 137 A.3d 666 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (intentionality vs. negligence and abatable harms weigh against de facto takings)
Poole v. Township of District, 843 A.2d 422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (negligent governmental acts typically remediable in trespass/tort, not eminent domain)
Central Bucks Joint School Building Authority v. Rawls, 303 A.2d 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (de facto taking from nuisance-like discharges where additional harms present)
Daw v. Department of Transportation, 768 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (drainage harms from resurfacing not recoverable under Code absent grade change)