Rainwater drainage: When the neighbor becomes a problem

A property owner took legal action against the discharge of rainwater from a neighboring property that was flowing into a small body of water on his own property. However, the authorities and the court saw no danger and dismissed the complaint. What does this mean for you and your rights?

When the neighbor drains the rainwater

The plaintiff objected to a water permit granted to her neighbor for the discharge of rainwater. There is a pond on her property that fluctuates seasonally and is partially located in the flood plain. A limited company had applied for permission to discharge rainwater from a construction project into this pond. The plaintiff feared flooding and damage to her trees.

Authority approves discharge - applicant refuses consent

The GmbH planned to allow some of the rainwater to seep away on its property and to discharge some of it into the plaintiff's pond. Although the plaintiff refused to give its consent, the lower water authority granted permission for the discharge. This included the construction of a 118 meter long rainwater channel and the discharge of water from an area of 1,107 m². The approved annual discharge volume was 695.10 m³.

Plaintiff sees danger to her property

The applicant lodged an objection, arguing that her property was lower and already flooded when it rained. The additional discharge of rainwater would worsen the situation and endanger her trees. She invoked the Water Resources Act (WHG) and the general principle of consideration.

Appeal rejected - court confirms decision

The water authority rejected the objection and explained that the local infiltration of rainwater was required by law. Other drains would pollute the groundwater and the sewer system was already overloaded. The administrative court took a similar view and dismissed the case. The local discharge complied with the legal requirements and the interests of the plaintiff had been sufficiently taken into account.

Decision by the authorities and the court must be viewed critically

While the legal regulation on the local infiltration of rainwater is sensible, the legitimate concerns of property owners must not be ignored. The plaintiff rightly pointed out the existing flooding problems and the danger to her trees. It is questionable whether the water law requirements were sufficiently observed in this case. Authorities and courts should carry out a more thorough examination and ensure that the interests of all affected parties are fairly considered. After all, the protection of property and natural resources is at stake.