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

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. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT