New Hampshire culvert issue

[tomuchwater]

We have a culvert coming across a city road on to our property, which had been replaced recently. This culvert has only accepted water coming down the hill across the street in its immediate area. The exit of the culvert is lower that what the area will accept, the city since forced water from down the road into this culvert rather than allowing it naturally to continue down the street, they dug a trench backwards into the culvert, and damming the far side of it with dirt.
The question would be, before pursuing this issue further, does the city require an easement for this action, since I don’t see it on our deed.
Thanks;

 

[justalayman]

was the work within the roadway easement?

did they alter your property (outside of any roadway easement) in any way (including additional water flow and/or actual structure)?

 

[tomuchwater]

I would say

other than increasing the volume by changing the direction of flow, they dug out an existing trench lower about a 30' run on our property 3' wide +/-, not sure how deep though, it's almost like the road has sunk and there trying to make up for it.

 

[NC Aggie]

We have a culvert coming across a city road on to our property, which had been replaced recently. This culvert has only accepted water coming down the hill across the street in its immediate area. The exit of the culvert is lower that what the area will accept, the city since forced water from down the road into this culvert rather than allowing it naturally to continue down the street, they dug a trench backwards into the culvert, and damming the far side of it with dirt.
The question would be, before pursuing this issue further, does the city require an easement for this action, since I don’t see it on our deed.
Thanks;

I believe you are asking if the City is required to obtain a drainage easement? If they are using a historical/natural drainage path or a designed drainage swale/ditch graded as part of a development, then they typically would not. Even if they've altered the flow upstream of this culvert, they would not be required to obtain any additional easement. Now if this increased flow is negatively impacting your property such as causing property damage (i.e. erosion, flooding, etc) then they may have to address this.

 

[xylene]

Are others negative effected by the changed water?

Pool your resources.

 

[tomuchwater]

@ this point

I'm really not sure untill the full spring thaw happens, don't get me wrong i don't want to come across as an ass, just want to be on top of this, and the water level at the same time

Thanks for your help!!

 

[154NH773]

Absent a specific easement; a "landowner (in this case the city) may manage or control diffuse surface water in any manner, provided it is reasonable in light of the interests affected thereby. In determining whether the measures taken by the landowner are reasonable, a court must consider the extent of the alteration of the natural or existing runoff patterns, the importance and nature of the land and its use, and the forseeability and magnitude of any resulting damage." Dudley v. Beckey, 132 NH 568 (1989)

So if you sustain damage, it would be up to a court to decide whether the city's action was reasonable, etc.

 

[HuAi]

The Landowner is NOT the city, it's the OP. That cite doesn't apply.

 

[154NH773]

The Landowner is NOT the city, it's the OP. That cite doesn't apply

I respectfully disagree.
The town is the owner of the property of the road, and is diverting the water coming on to their property, into the culvert that is emptying onto the OP's property. The Town has the right to so divert the water, providing that the criteria are met under this NH opinion. It would be up to a court to decide if the criteria are being met.

 

[NC Aggie]

The Landowner is NOT the city, it's the OP. That cite doesn't apply.

Actually it still would because the "measures" that the OP referenced were done to manage runoff. The O.P. indicated that at least some of these "improvements" were done on their property but it's possible the City was within the right of way or existing easement. If they did do work outside the right of way or easement, then that's a separate issue.

The intent of the statute or ruling is that property owners or entities may reasonably alter drainage patterns for the purpose of managing runoff so long as it is within reason and does not result in damage to properties.