Crowel v. Marshall County Drainage Board
951 N.E.2d 290
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Arm #7 of the Myers Ditch in Marshall County serves a 358-acre watershed including Crowel's 26-acre farm.
- In 1999 landowners petitioned for reconstruction due to flooding; a surveyor later classified Arm #7 as needing reconstruction and estimated costs at $114,474 with an assessment schedule.
- Drainage Board published notice and held a March 15, 2010 hearing; Crowel and others objected to the proposed $7,000+ assessment arguing lack of benefit to Crowel’s land.
- Surveyor testified Crowel’s land is at the higher end of the watershed and that runoff from his property contributes to lower-end flooding; blockages on Crowel’s private tile were noted but outside Drainage Board jurisdiction.
- Board adopted the surveyor’s report and assessment schedule, finding benefits to parcels within the watershed; trial court denied Crowel’s judicial review petition.
- The trial court made special findings but did not expressly find a benefit to Crowel’s land; appeal challenged the Board’s basis for apportioning costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Drainage Board's assessment is supported by benefits to Crowel's land | Crowel: no benefit to his land, so no assessment should be levied | Board: Crowel's land is within the watershed and contributes to lower-area flooding, justifying costs | Reversed and remanded for new findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubenthal v. Crain, 239 Ind. 646 (1959) (benefits may be indirect and must be special, not general)
- Culbertson v. Knight, 152 Ind. 121 (1899) (upper lands may be assessed for drainage benefiting lower lands; common enemy doctrine context)
- Argyelan v. Haviland, 435 N.E.2d 973 (Ind. 1982) (common enemy doctrine; limits on collecting surface water via artificial means)
- Schrader v. Porter Cnty. Drainage Bd., 880 N.E.2d 304 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (standard for reviewing special findings under Trial Rule 52(A))
- Clouse v. Noble Cnty. Drainage Bd., 809 N.E.2d 849 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (two-tier review of special findings; substantial evidence standard)
- Lipes v. Hand, 104 Ind. 503 (1885) (benefits are about land value or burden relief; may be indirect)