ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT