Board of Water Works Trustees of the City of Des Moines, Iowa v. Sac County Board of Supervisors, as Trustee of Drainage Districts 32, 42, 65, 79, 81, 83, 86, and Calhoun County Board of Supervisors and Sac County Board of Supervisors as Joint Trustees of Drainage Districts 2 and 51 and Buena Vista County Board of Supervisors and Sac County Board of Supervisors as Joint Trustees of Drainage Districts 19
890 N.W.2d 50
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Des Moines Water Works (DMWW), a municipal water utility, draws source water from the Raccoon River and alleges high nitrate levels requiring costly nitrate-removal treatment and a new treatment plant.
- Thirteen upstream drainage districts (managed by county boards of supervisors) operate tile and ditch systems that convey agricultural runoff into the Raccoon River; DMWW sues them for damages and injunctive relief based on nuisance, statutory violations, negligence, trespass, and constitutional claims (takings, due process, equal protection).
- Federal district court certified four questions of Iowa law to the Iowa Supreme Court about: (1) whether drainage districts are immune from money-damage claims; (2) whether they are immune from equitable remedies other than mandamus; (3) whether a public utility may assert Iowa constitutional protections against another political subdivision; and (4) whether DMWW has a property interest for a takings claim.
- Iowa Supreme Court majority held (1) drainage districts are immune from money-damage claims, (2) immune from equitable remedies other than mandamus, (3) a public subdivision generally cannot assert inalienable rights, due process, equal protection, or takings claims against another subdivision (takings claim not viable here), and (4) DMWW has no compensable property interest for a takings claim under the circumstances alleged.
- The majority relied heavily on long-standing precedent (Fisher, Gard, Chicago Central) and legislative acquiescence in chapter 468; two justices (Appel, joined in part by Cady) concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing injunctive (nuisance) relief and a possible takings claim should not be foreclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of money damages against drainage districts | DMWW: drainage-district immunity should not bar tort or statutory claims for pollution-related costs (nitrate removal) | Drainage districts: longstanding Iowa precedent bars money-damage suits; districts have only limited statutory powers | Held: No — Iowa precedent bars money damages against drainage districts (immunity applies) |
| Availability of equitable relief (injunctions) other than mandamus | DMWW: equitable remedies (injunctions, abatement) are available to stop ongoing pollution and enforce nuisance law | Defendants: equitable relief (except mandamus) is precluded by precedent and impractical because districts lack authority/funding to comply | Held: No — immunity/precedent limits relief to mandamus (majority). Concurrence (Appel) would allow injunctive nuisance relief to proceed on the merits |
| Ability of a public subdivision to assert constitutional claims (inalienable rights, due process, equal protection, takings) against another subdivision | DMWW: constitutional protections apply and bar uncompensated shifting of costs; takings and equal protection claims available | Defendants: one political subdivision generally cannot sue another under those constitutional provisions; takings unavailable because water is public/state-owned | Held: No — majority: public subdivisions generally may not assert those constitutional claims against fellow subdivisions; takings claim fails here. Appel would allow a takings claim in limited circumstances |
| Existence of a compensable property interest for takings claim | DMWW: riparian/use interest in water quality is a property interest; contamination that forces treatment costs is a taking | Defendants: DMWW has no private property right in public river water; statute authorizing drainage serves public purpose and rebuts takings claim | Held: No — majority: no compensable property interest for the takings claim as pleaded. Concurrence: possible property interest; takings claim may survive factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Dallas County, 369 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1985) (held drainage districts are not subject to tort suits for money damages)
- Gard v. Little Sioux Intercounty Drainage Dist., 521 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 1994) (reaffirmed drainage-district immunity from tort damages; rejected equal protection challenge)
- Chicago Cent. & Pac. R.R. v. Calhoun Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 816 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 2012) (unanimously reaffirmed mandamus as the appropriate remedy and denied money-recovery against drainage districts)
- Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., 848 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 2014) (discussed nuisance and environmental common-law remedies coexisting with statutory schemes)
- City of Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1923) (municipality cannot assert a takings claim against its creating state)
- United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1984) (federal precedent recognizing that a local government may be entitled to compensation when the federal government condemns local property)