First impression case tackles wetlands issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that a landowner who raises the subterranean water table on his land and creates a federally regulated wetland may not invoke the common enemy doctrine of water diversion and be shielded from liability to adjoining landowners whose properties as a result become federally regulated wetlands.

In B & B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Company, No. 45A04-1002-PL-183, the appellate judges reversed the grant of judgment in favor of Lake Erie Land Company on B&B LLC’s claims against it for trespass, nuisance, and negligence. B&B argued that the defense of the common enemy doctrine wasn’t properly raised and presented at trial by LEL and that the trial court improperly implied it in this case. It also argued the trial court erred in finding LEL didn’t commit trespass as a matter of law and that LEL clearly breached a duty that it owed to B&B.

B&B and LEL purchased portions of land near each other that once were swampy and unusable but became usable after a ditch was built to drain the land. B&B intended to operate a concrete crushing and recycling facility on its land. Just south of this property were two mitigation bank parcels that LEL owned. LEL made modifications to the land to create wetlands, which caused the water table of the land to rise. These modifications caused a wetland to be formed on B&B’s property, leading to the Army Corps of Engineers to order B&B to cease and desist from bringing in any more concrete to the property. That’s when B&B sued LEL for lost profits, clean-up costs, and the lost value of its land.

The Court of Appeals first rejected B&B’s arguments for reversal on the basis that LEL didn’t raise the defense of the common enemy doctrine at trial. B&B offered evidence at trial that related to surface water issues and it failed to object to any pretrial evidence that LEL submitted on those issues. The record demonstrates that the issues relating to the common enemy doctrine and surface waters were tried by the parties’ consent, wrote Judge John Baker.

The judges then analyzed the common enemy doctrine and noted that because the water in question in the case was groundwater, it’s not governed by the common enemy doctrine. They also noted that they were unable to find any cases that cite any authority that allows a party to stop the free flow of subterranean waters in order to raise the water table not only upon its land but on adjoining lands to create a federally regulated wetland.

“In our view, neither the principles applicable to subterranean waters nor the common enemy doctrine would permit a defendant to stop the free flow of underground waters so that adjoining properties become flooded,” wrote Judge Baker.

Also, LEL knew that raising the water table on its land past a certain elevation could potentially flood neighboring properties and that the mitigation bank would likely inundate B&B’s land. As such, LEL undertook a duty and breached that duty by not stopping the propagation of wetland species that culminated in the establishment of wetlands on B&B’s parcel of land. The judges also held that B&B presented evidence of trespass.

The judges reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?