Drainage Problem Created by County Road Improvements

[lray882]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tennessee
Originally, the county road along my farm property was a gravel road and water flowed across it freely during rain events. Many times it would wash out and need repairing. It was first paved around 1990 and most recently three to four years ago. Each time it was paved the road grade was raised approximately four to six inches. Therefore, yielding a total of 8” to 12” in plus elevation. This has created ponding on my property at the sag point of the roadway. After county officals come and looked at the ponding issue, county forces came and cut a ditch along the road on my side (upstream side) with the intention of installing a cross-drain to eliminate the ponding. After marking the location of the proposed pipe on the road surface. The downstream property owner threaten to sue the county if the pipe was installed because he thinks the pipe will release concentrated water on him. This is the natural flow of the drainage area. No new drainage area is being added at the pipe location.

In my case the proposed 18” pipe would relieve the water collecting at the sag in the new roadway ditch and prevent water from ponding on my property that was created by the county due to the raised elevation of the roadway. The proposed pipe would not outlet into an open field or cropland. Any water exiting the pipe would enter a large existing ditch beside the roadway and find its way to an existing stream and then a blue line stream as shown on the TVA Quad Map. The majority of the water from the approximate 30-acre drainage area will still overtop the roadway during large rain events due to the inadequacy of the 18” pipe and the grade of the road. If there was still a concern the proposed pipe would carry concentrated water at the outlet, it could be dissipated with large rip-rap rock placed at the end.

The county also agrees it is a saftey problem for the motoring public, but thinks "high water" signs would prevent them from being sue in the event of an accident. The county has offer to fill in the ditch they cut, but will not install the pipe based on the property owners complaint. No roadway ditch would force more surface water onto the roadway making the saftey issue worse. After I wrote a letter requesting the pipe be installed, they are now saying that ponding water was occurring on my property when I bought the farm. The farm has been in my family for 65 years. I bought out my siblings in 2007 after my mother passed away.

Due to the fact that the county has created the ponding that is occurring on the upstream side, I feel it is the county’s responsibility to provide drainage under the roadway as in the case when any roadway is built. Water left behind that cannot exit at the sag point because there is no cross-drain to relieve it takes weeks to completely evaporate from the ditch they cut. The proposed pipe would also solve some of the safety concerns the county admits to. However, the water would still overtop the roadway during large rain events.

I think the downstream owner is being unreasonable. This is the natural flow of the water that is presently damed up by the road creating a detention area on the upstream side.

What is my legal options? What is my chance of forcing the county to install the pipe with a lawsuit? Will the county pay court cost if I win?

 

[154NH773]

Unfortunately you will probably have to go to court to force them to put in the culvert.

My brother-in-law had the same problem in Michigan, but in that case (which did not go to court) the town determined that the natural course of water should flow across the street and put in the culver over the mild objections of the neighbor.

I would like to hear other's opinions, but I think you could make a good case to have the culvert installed. Diminishing the value of your property by causing it to flood could be considered a "taking". If they won't alleviate the problem they created, the town should compensate you.

Just because you have a good case, that doesn't mean that you will win. Court is a crap-shoot, and an expensive one. In most cases, especially against a town, you will not get your court costs even if you win. They are making a discretionary decision that is somewhat protected from any liability.

 

[NC Aggie]

Without the benefit of viewing topo, aerials, etc of this area, I'm only making an assessment based on the information you've provided. I actually understand arguments from all side involved. Your position is definitely a valid one, however, I think the county and other property owner have arguments that have to be considered.

From the other property owner's perspective, altering the existing drainage pattern and creating concentrated flow from any size pipe larger than 12 inches has the "potential" to cause problems if the flow isn't diffused or directed properly.

From the county's perspective, the threat of suit is definitely a factor to consider because they potentially would be "altering" a drainage path and if the other property owner received some type of damage from this runoff, they could easily point to this as the reason, which if proven in court would entitle them to damages. Also, from a feasibility assessment, would it make sense to install this pipe if it's not going to be of adequate size for larger storm events. Sounds like a 24 inch or double 15 inch pipes would make more sense.

From your perspective and on the surface, it does sound like the county has some obligation to relieve this standing water which you say is s result of the road being raised over the years from resurfacing. However, the question would be did you experience ANY of these problems before the road was raised? I honestly don't think taking them to court will yeild any result because #1 You have to prove you didn't have this issue before, #2 the resurfacing of this road caused the standing water on your property, #3 that your real property or personal properties were damaged as a result of this. So if this standing water is occuring on a portion of your property that's not even in use, then you really wouldn't be able to prove damages of any kind.

P.S. Does the county not have any right of way outside the edge of the pavement? I would assume that the ditches are within the right of way and not on either your personal properties so the issue would be confined to the right of way?

 

[lray882]

I know there is some issues that come in to play, but my position is the natural flow of water cannot be blocked. Yes, I am damaged as it drowns out 1 to 2 acres of row crop and water is ponded in a ditch all along the front of my property reducing the value of it.

 

[NC Aggie]

I know there is some issues that come in to play, but my position is the natural flow of water cannot be blocked. Yes, I am damaged as it drowns out 1 to 2 acres of row crop and water is ponded in a ditch all along the front of my property reducing the value of it.

I could see an argument for damages for 1 to 2 acres of crop, but I honestly don't think standing water in a ditch in front of your property would stand much of a chance in arguing damages. However, that would be up to a court to decide if you prove that the county's actions ALONE resulted in this problem.

From my assessment (again without looking at actual data), I find it hard to believe that raising the road 12" (at most) would cause water to back up for 1 to 2 acres without any prexisting issues unless all the land and road involved was totally flat and we know that's not the case since you referenced a sag in the roadway. There are laws in some states that apply to the blockage of natural drainage ways but you may want to review the exact verbage because the ones I'm familiar with apply to runoff originating from public right of way and not private property.