N.C. court rules unmanaged stormwater runoff can constitute trespass
(UI) — A recent decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals has set a precedent that stormwater runoff crossing property lines without authorization may amount to trespass—an important clarification for developers, utility owners, and infrastructure planners.
The case, H/S New Bern, LLC v. First Berkshire Properties, LLC, involved stormwater from a retail property that continued flowing into a neighboring retention pond after the expiration of a shared easement agreement. The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff nominal damages but reversed part of a trial court’s order for injunctive relief.
According to attorneys at Smith Anderson, a full-service business and litigation law firm, the appellate court affirmed that allowing uncontrolled runoff onto another property creates clear trespass liability. The ruling establishes that property owners have an affirmative duty to manage stormwater within their boundaries once any legal authorization to discharge ends.
Importantly, the court categorized the runoff as a “renewing trespass”—not a continuing one—since the water was not permanently diverted. Damages for this type of recurring intrusion are measured by the diminished rental value or reasonable cost of repair, rather than loss in property value. In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of measurable harm, and the court limited recovery to $1,000 in nominal damages.
The court also addressed the scope of injunctive relief. While it upheld targeted provisions requiring the defendant to install features that prevent runoff, it rejected an order demanding the removal of all impervious surfaces due to insufficient supporting evidence. This suggests courts will enforce specific, evidence-based remediation—but are unlikely to approve sweeping corrective measures without proper justification.
Smith Anderson attorneys note the decision carries several key takeaways for those involved in land development and construction:
- Property owners should proactively address how stormwater discharge will be handled once easement agreements end.
- Legal exposure for trespass may include punitive damages if discharge is shown to be willful.
- Parties seeking injunctive relief should support their requests with specific, evidence-based arguments rather than general claims.
The ruling reinforces that even in cases where monetary damages are minimal, courts may still require future corrective action—making proper stormwater infrastructure and legal clarity essential for avoiding costly disputes.
This summary is based on a legal update published by Smith Anderson.
Related News
From Archive
- TxDOT advances massive drainage tunnel beneath I-35 in Austin
- Glenfarne Alaska LNG targets late-2026 construction start for 807-mile pipeline project
- U.S. water reuse boom to fuel $47 billion in infrastructure spending through 2035
- $2.3 billion approved to construct 236-mile Texas-to-Gulf gas pipeline
- Major water pipe break in Puerto Rico hits over 165,000 customers
- Pennsylvania American Water launches interactive map to identify, replace lead water service lines
- Trump's tariffs drive $33 million cost increase for Cincinnati sewer project
- Utah city launches historic $70 million tunnel project using box jacking under active rail line
- Tulsa residents warned after sewer lines damaged by boring work
- Fatal trench collapse halts sewer construction in Massachusetts; two workers hospitalized
Comments