Consider two adjoining properties in a high rainfall location. Both owners are relatively recently moved in. The owner of PropertyA discovers there is ongoing property damage due to rainfall redirected by large concreted areas sloped from PropertyB into PropertyA. This construction predates the move-in of either owner.
Remedies directly on PropertyA are difficult and would only be partially effective. Remedies on PropertyB (the originator of the precipitation) are non-trivial but simpler and can be highly effective.
It seems clear that new construction on PrpopertyA that causes this situation would be actionable - e.g. Rainwater from neighbor from avvo.com
If the water discharging onto your property is creating issues you can sue the neighbor for damages and force them to ameliorate the problem.
But what about this historical situation in which the owners inherited the problem? Is the owner of PropertyA essentially dependent solely on their own partially-effective-at-best ingenuity and the "goodwill" of the other owner?
Update Based on a comment by @hilmar about a "mutual agreeable solution" then let's consider the value of undersatnding the legal basis for action.
A discussion between the property owners would be well served by a shared understanding of the legal responsibilities. If there were none then it is unlikely that a request to invest $1000's to do a basic remediation would even get off off the ground. After all PropertyB has nothing to gain from the proposed work. It would be viewed as a non-trivial cost and nuisance from the perspective of PropertyB owner. But if the discussion includes the notification of an actual legal requirement then we now have an "incentive" for PropertyB owner to participate in a serious (and not pleasant financially or schedule-wise) discussion. That leaves at least a chance of discussing an approach to "splits the difference" . E.g. PropertyA owner forking out half of the cost of the remediation on PropertyB.