Neighboring land in narrow and broad terms

The concept of neighboring land (as per Article 234(3) of the Water Law) can be defined in two ways. In the narrow sense, it should be undisputed that such a designation refers to land directly adjacent (directly bordering, sharing a border) to the property where changes causing damages have occurred. In the broad sense, it encompasses all lands (properties) where the harmful effects of the water state change on the land are felt.

Immediate and extended impact

Undoubtedly, lands directly adjacent to the property where changes have occurred are most susceptible to the impact of these changes. From this, one might infer that indeed these are the lands targeted by the provisions of Article 234(3) of the Water Law. However, due to existing factual conditions, such as terrain formation, its geological structure, anthropogenic changes to the terrain (already present on the land), and changes in the terrain caused by natural forces, it might turn out that actions on one property (on one piece of land) can have effects not only in its immediate vicinity but significantly further away.

Similarly, it might turn out that effects will not occur on any of the properties directly adjacent to the one where the water state was altered, but, for instance, at a considerable distance. An example of such a factual situation could be when someone alters the water state in a valley, e.g., directing water there that naturally did not flow there, and the effects of this change are primarily (or even exclusively) felt as damage at its lowest point, where, for example, water accumulates and stagnates.

Examples from case law

To substantiate this, below are examples of the understanding of the concept of neighboring lands from the case law of administrative courts.

In the verdict dated August 23, 2018 (file no. II SA/Po 322/18), the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań recognizes and emphasizes that the legislator clearly indicates that this pertains to neighboring lands, not directly adjacent to the plots of the entity that alters the water state on the land. In the case reviewed by this Court, the harmful change – consisting of raising the plot’s surface and eliminating its original inclination – caused the absence of runoff of rainwater and meltwater – which originally flowed from these properties, or its limitation (full content of the verdict).

The Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów in its verdict dated November 14, 2017 (file no. II SA/Rz 764/17) indicated that: changes to the water state on the land caused by the owner, are such actions that interfere with the natural water state in the area related to its formation, natural conditions, and hydrological conditions, and provide grounds for the application of the sanction mentioned in Art. 29(3) of the Water Law (in the previous Water Law this was the equivalent of Art. 234(3) – note by the author].

Such actions include not only directing flowing water across a given area to a neighboring plot but also creating an obstacle to the runoff of rainwater from neighboring areas, e.g., filling in a ditch that previously carried rainwater from higher-lying areas or raising the terrain to prevent water runoff. The legislator clearly indicates that this pertains to neighboring lands and not those directly adjacent to the plots of the entity that alters the water state on the land. (full content of the verdict).

Similarly indicated:

• The Provincial Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski in the verdict dated August 6, 2015 (file no. II SA/Go 377/15, full content of the verdict);
• The Provincial Administrative Court in Białystok (in the verdict dated June 10, 2014, file no. II SA/Bk 265/13, full content of the verdict);
• The Provincial Administrative Court in Gliwice (in the verdict dated August 27, 2012, file no. II SA/Gl 556/12, full content of the verdict);
• The Provincial Administrative Court in Kraków (in the verdict dated February 21, 2013, file no. II SA/Kr 101/12, full content of the verdict);
• The Provincial Administrative Court in Kraków (in the verdict dated July 4, 2013, file no. II SA/Łd 336/13, full content of the verdict).

It is evident, then, that the broad interpretation of the concept of neighboring lands has gained general approval in the case law of administrative courts. It should therefore be assumed that a harmful change on land can affect not only the lands directly adjacent to the property where the change was made but also other properties in the vicinity. Such properties and their owners may seek protection, as afforded by Article 234(3) of the Water Law.