ILNews

Judges split over order property owner pay for construction of drainage-ditch arm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided in its ruling on whether a man whose land sits higher and isn’t prone to flooding should have to pay for the reconstruction of an arm of a nearby drainage ditch. The dissenting judge wrote that Wednesday’s decision will promote “water wars” between neighbors.

The Marshall County Drainage Board decided that clay tile arm No. 7 of the Myers Ditch needed reconstruction because several properties located within the watershed complained of flooding and water in basements. A surveyor proposed a new route for the tile be constructed and that the cost of it would be around $114,000, and property owners should be assessed to pay for the construction.

Thomas Crowel, who owned 26 acres of farm land and whose property was at the higher end of the watershed, challenged his $7,000 assessment, claiming he didn’t have flooding problems. He argued that he shouldn’t have to pay for the construction as he would receive no benefit. The surveyor and a drainage board member testified that because his property is higher, surface water runoff from his land contributes to the flooding problems of the lower-lying properties.

The surveyor’s proposed assessment schedule was adopted, and Crowel filed a petition for judicial review, which was denied. The trial court found the board’s decision that Crowel should contribute to the cost of the project was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful, and it was supported by substantial evidence.

In Thomas R. Crowel v. Marshall County Drainage Board, No. 50A03-1011-MI-606, Judges Paul Mathias and James Kirsch reversed, citing Hubenthal v. Crain, 239 Ind. 646, 650, 159 N.E.2d 850, 852-53 (1959), in which the Indiana Supreme Court noted that a surveyor must consider the fact that owners of higher land have a right to the natural drainage of their land, language which is corollary to Indiana’s common law “common enemy doctrine” of surface water diversion.

The trial court didn’t consider Crowel’s right to natural drainage of his land, and it concluded that he should have to pay because the natural flow of surface water from his land contributed to the drainage problems of others.

“We must therefore conclude that, as a matter of law, relieving the lower-lying parcels from flooding occasioned by the natural flow of surface water from Crowel’s property does not benefit Crowel’s land and, therefore, cannot form the basis of the reconstruction assessment levied against him. Because the trial court made no findings regarding any other benefit to Crowel’s land, its findings were insufficient to support its judgment,” wrote Judge Mathias.

The majority also noted this case is different than Culbertson v. Knight, 152 Ind. 121, 52 N.E. 700 (1899), because that case involved the collection of water by artificial means.

Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented because she found that Crowel’s land would benefit by reconstructing the drain. She noted that Crowel’s property is in the watershed and his surface water empties into the drain in question. The water must travel through his neighbors’ properties, causing them flooding.

She also wrote that his neighbors on lower-lying land also have the right under the “common enemy doctrine” to dam water or to change the grade of their land to cause water to back up on Crowel’s property.

“Thus, Crowel’s neighbors have the right to engage in a water war to alleviate the flooding problems of their own property. The avoidance of a future water war with his neighbors is also a benefit, albeit an indirect one, to Crowel’s land,” she wrote, explaining that the majority’s opinion changes drainage law, will promote water wars, and undermines the legislative intent of resolving water problems by a common enterprise.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT