Railroad’s Claim for Reimbursement for Repairs to Drainage Tiles Is Sunk

Drainage districts in Iowa are authorized under the Iowa Constitution. A county board of supervisors has the authority to establish a drainage district when it would be conducive to public health, convenience, or welfare. The power of drainage districts once they have been established is strictly proscribed through statute. Boards of supervisors must continue to maintain districts, plan projects, and fund the activities in a manner consistent with the statute. They are given discretion to make these decisions.

Railroads also have statutory duties relating to drainage districts. Railroads must maintain railroad property crossing over a drainage district.  Drainage districts must give railroads notice about improvements that cross railroad rights-of-way.  The railroad is then required to construct or reconstruct any necessary culvert or bridge where a drain crosses the right-of-way so free-flowing water is unimpeded. The railroad must comply with construction of the culvert or bridge within 30 days of receiving notice.

In this case, the railroad made improvements to damaged drainage tile and then sought reimbursement from the board of supervisors rather than taking action to compel the board to make repairs. The railroad also failed to provide notice to the board of how the repair would be conducted before making the repair and then seeking reimbursement from the board.

The railroad section at issue was built in 1870. The drainage district was formed in 1908. The tile line that intersected the railroad track was built in 1908. In 2008, a sinkhole developed on the edge of the railroad tracks. The clay drainage tiles that were installed in 1908 had collapsed and were pulling the crushed rock down into the ground. The railroad required all trains to slow to 10 miles per hour over the area and the hole was filled with crushed rock as a temporary solution.

The railroad and representatives for the drainage district met to discuss a solution for repair. A settlement for payment of the repair fell through. Instead, the board sent a letter to the railroad informing the railroad it was responsible for the repair under Iowa Code § 468.111 and should notify the board regarding the plan and timeline for repair. 

A few months later, the railroad sent a letter to the board stating that the railroad had repaired the tile drain and requested reimbursement of $11,003.28 for the work and $4,888.36 for “train delay costs” incurred by the railroad for the cost of slowing trains as they crossed over the collapsed tile drain. The board denied the claims for reimbursement, and the railroad appealed to the district court. 

In answering the railroad’s complaint, the board admitted the work had been done but claimed that the railroad was responsible for the repairs. Later, the board claimed immunity from the suit. A hearing was held, and the trial court ordered dismissal of the railroad’s suit. The court held that a “culvert” in Iowa Code § 468.111 included an underground tile drain when it intersected a railroad track and the intersection was in a natural waterway, so the railroad was liable for the costs of repair.  The railroad appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The board argued that Iowa law does not permit a suit against the drainage district for money damages and the only remedy available, if the railroad believed the board was not doing its job, was to file a mandamus action to compel the board to make the repair. The railroad claimed the sinkhole issue was an emergency situation that required quick repair and, as a result, the statute allowed for reimbursement.

The Supreme Court concluded that Iowa’s Code requires that once a drainage improvement district has been built, it is mandatory that the district be maintained. If the board of supervisors overseeing the district fails to act, then a mandamus action is the appropriate remedy. After a successful mandamus, the board is compelled to make the repair, but the manner of proceeding is solely within the board’s discretion. 

The Court reminded the railroad that on previous occasions the Court has held that a board’s refusal to repair a drainage improvement is a refusal to act rather than an affirmative action, so there is no applicable appeal provision for the refusal under the Code. A drainage district has special and limited powers granted under the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, a district can only be sued to compel, complete, or correct the performance of the board or district. The Court rejected the railroad’s claim that the situation was an emergency that could not be delayed waiting for action even though the railroad waited several months before making the repair and was only able to temporarily remedy the situation by slowing trains crossing the section.

The Court also held that the right to an appeal under drainage district law involves only board decisions affecting a person’s rights. Because the railroad did not follow the proper procedural framework of filing a mandamus action or getting approval from the board for the repairs to be made, it had no right to compensation upon which to base an appeal. By undertaking the voluntary repair without following procedure, the railroad took the risk it would not be reimbursed. 

The Court was also concerned that if the railroad was able to bypass the statutory procedure by conducting a repair without involving the board, making a claim for reimbursement and filing suit when reimbursement was denied, the board’s ability to make decisions about the repair and maintenance of drainage improvements would be meaningless. The Court felt this result would leave the responsibilities of the board for maintenance intact, but remove the board’s discretion for how to finance and plan maintenance of the district in contravention of statute. 

The Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case for different reasons and vacated the decision of the court of appeals.

Boards of supervisors have an obligation to maintain and repair a drainage district, but the board has broad discretion to decide how this is to be completed. Individuals affected by a drainage district must follow statutory procedures when attempting to remedy a board’s decision.  In this case, the Court made clear that requiring the board to act to fulfill its obligation to repair is the extent of judicial recourse that was available to the railroad, and the board has complete discretion regarding the actual planning and completing of the repair. The Court will also not allow individuals to bypass the board’s decision-making abilities and no compensation will be awarded for voluntary repairs, so individuals must continue to work with the board to resolve issues and compel the board to take the correct legal action when appropriate. Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Calhoun County Board of Supervisors, No. 10-0061, 2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 74 (Iowa Sup. Ct. Jun. 29, 2012).