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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT