Keith Redburn v. Charmelle Garrett, 898 F.3d 486

Background

City of Victoria operated a storm-sewer system historically culminating in an open ditch (Phillips Ditch) crossing land now owned by Redburn; the ditch carried runoff from a ~122-acre city drainage field across the property.
Braman, Redburn’s predecessor, transferred a 0.11-acre strip to the City in 1939 and, in 1941, requested permission to build a fence over the ditch, stating he would “assume risk” of damage; the City granted the request.
By 1932 the City had largely placed its sewer system underground elsewhere but left the open ditch across Braman/Redburn’s land; culverts exist at the parcel edges.
Redburn purchased the property in 2004, complained to the City beginning in 2006 about erosion, debris, and safety hazards; he plugged a drain in 2011 and sued, asserting state-law claims and a federal takings claim under § 1983.
The federal district court granted summary judgment for the City, holding the City had an easement by estoppel (and alternatively an implied easement) and no duty to accommodate Redburn; the Fifth Circuit vacated on easement issues and affirmed dismissal of the federal takings claim as time‑barred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City holds an easement by estoppel to drain across Redburn’s land	Braman’s 1941 letter did not create or concede a drainage right; Redburn relied on ambiguity and lack of City detrimental reliance	City: Braman’s letter and City’s permission to fence constituted representations and City relied to its detriment	Reversed: genuine factual disputes exist; City failed to show no dispute of material fact on estoppel
Whether City has an implied easement (prior use or necessity)	Redburn: quitclaim and historical facts do not show grant of a broad drainage easement; evidence suggests deed served street completion, not drainage	City: prior use/quitclaim established an implied easement to use ditch for drainage	Reversed: factual disputes on prior use; necessity inapplicable; City did not meet summary judgment burden
Whether, if an easement exists, the City must accommodate surface uses by burying pipes (reasonable‑use limitation on easement)	Redburn: City’s surface drainage unreasonably burdens servient estate; state law requires easement use be as little burdensome as possible and may require less destructive alternative (burying pipes)	City: no duty to accommodate; district court rejected applying the accommodation doctrine to easements	Vacated/reversed on this point for trial: if an easement exists, court must assess under Texas ‘‘reasonable use’’ principles whether City’s use is unreasonably burdensome and whether alternatives are required
Whether City’s ongoing drainage use constitutes a federal physical taking under the Fifth Amendment	Redburn: continuous erosion and inundation constitute a physical taking entitling him to compensation	City: claim is time‑barred; also contends use is within easement scope	Affirmed dismissal: § 1983 takings claim time‑barred (accrued by 2006; two‑year limitations)

Key Cases Cited

Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. 1962) (elements for easement by prior use)
Hamrick v. Ward, 446 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2014) (distinguishes necessity and prior‑use implied easements)
Severance v. Patterson, 370 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2012) (scope of property rights and limits on burdens from dominant estate)
Getty Oil Co. v. Jones, 470 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1971) (reasonableness requirement and alternatives in surface/subsurface conflicts)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (permanent physical occupation is a taking)
Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 80 U.S. 166 (1871) (superinduced additions of water/earth may effect a taking)
United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745 (1947) (continuous flooding by government may be a taking)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (§ 1983 claims borrow state statute of limitations)
Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 1995) (accrual rule for § 1983 claims)