Surface water drainage disputes can arise between property owners when an adjacent landowner does something to interfere with the natural or historical flow of water to or from their property. Historically, the law did not permit much alteration of a natural water course. But, a landowner of higher elevation (the owner of the “dominant estate”) is entitled to drain excess surface water onto land of lower elevation (the “servient estate”) along and within the natural watercourse. However, a drawback of this approach was that it did not allow landowners to fully develop and utilize their land’s potential. Consequently, in 1908, the Iowa Constitution was amended to create a system of drainage districts, whereby a county board would oversee drainage issues within any particular district. A county board of supervisors can establish a drainage district, as can two or more landowners by filing a petition with the county auditor’s office. Once a drainage district is properly established, a tax assessment for that drainage district will be made against each benefitted tract of land. The collected taxes are kept in a separate fund known as the “county drainage fund” and administered by the county auditor. A drainage district is not required to follow the natural watercourse and can divert water in or out of a natural watercourse if it is more efficient in the management of the drainage of water. For land not contained within a drainage district, landowners are subject to Iowa law with respect to the drainage of surface water – both statutory and case law.
A recent opinion of the Iowa Court of Appeals dealt with a surface water drainage dispute between neighbors and involved numerous issues - statutory and common law surface water drainage rules; whether the land at issue was in a drainage district and, if so, whether the drainage district had terminated; nuisance; negligence; trespass; and whether the Iowa statute requiring mediation of disputes involving farmers with respect to certain types of contracts and nuisances applied. Unfortunately, because of the way the case was handled at the trial court level and the reasoning of the appellate court on certain issues, the opinion raises more questions than it resolves.