In Iowa, drainage districts can be formed when there will be a public benefit. Further, Iowa Code provides that drainage of surface waters from agricultural lands shall be presumed to be a public benefit. All formations constructed for these purposes, however, must be surveyed and located along the natural watercourses or natural drainage of the land as much as is practical. Sometimes, however, a drainage district will alter the natural watercourse and increase the volume of water flowing over another’s land.
In Iowa, landowners may drain their land in the natural course by constructing or repairing drains and will not liable for damages from the drainage unless the actions taken increase the quantity or manner of discharge of the drainage onto another landowner’s property.
In this case, the plaintiffs were landowners who sued a county and its board of supervisors for their failure to adequately maintain a drainage district, which the plaintiffs claimed caused an increase in the collection of water on their land. The drainage district at issue was established 87 years before this case. The costs for building and maintaining the district rest with the county landowners. The district initially constructed a main tile to alleviate subsurface moisture and added lateral tile lines that fed into the main line over the years. The main line followed the contour of the land from uphill to downhill and followed the natural flow of water.
The plaintiffs owned land outside and downhill from the drainage district. After e a large amount of water flowed onto their property and settled there, the plaintiffs hired an engineer to review the situation. The plaintiffs presented some possible corrective actions that could be taken by the district to help remedy the situation. The board of supervisors decided to replace an existing sinkhole with a reinforced concrete structure. The district landowners paid for the improvement.
The improved sinkhole, however, did not solve the problem and the plaintiffs sought an injunction against the Board to prohibit use of the improved sinkhole and a writ of mandamus requiring the district to drain the water into an alternate outlet in accordance with the engineer’s report.
After a bench trial, the district court noted that the plaintiffs were located downhill in one of the lowest elevations of the area, and had previously had problems with excess drainage water problems. As a result, the court determined that developing a more expensive outlet was a discretionary improvement rather than a mandatory repair. Because it was discretionary, it did not justify a writ of mandamus being issued.
The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the court found several facts of importance. First, the plaintiffs’ land was downhill and water will naturally flow downhill. There was testimony that the tiling and improvements did actually improve the situation on plaintiffs’ property. Second, the dates complained of were years in which abnormally large rainfalls occurred in the area. Because of this, most of the water coming onto the plaintiffs’ property would not have even entered the drainage tile and would have flowed downhill on the surface unchanged by the tiling regardless of any improvements made. Third, other landowners planted grasses in the area in which water flowed to ease the problem on their land, but the plaintiffs chose not to do so. For these reasons, the court upheld the district court’s denial of an injunction and writ of mandamus. Vorhes Ltd. v. Staudt, No. 2/382/11-1554, 2012 Iowa App. LEXIS 544 (Iowa Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2012)