Surat Farms v. Brule Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs
2017 SD 52
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Delany and Surat Farms own adjacent rural farmland in Brule County with a natural watercourse flowing from Delany to Surat.
- In 2013 Surat installed a drain tile with a subsurface inlet beyond the culvert outlet; the inlet was covered by rock and dirt and did not directly receive surface water.
- In 2014 Delany experienced water backing up toward his basement; Delany filed a drainage complaint against Surat and an upstream landowner.
- Brosz Engineering mapped elevations showing a downstream-upstream elevation change and a 15-inch rise beyond Surat’s outlet where the tiling occurred.
- The Brule County Board concluded Surat’s project altered the natural water flow and ordered action to restore flow; Surat’s later de novo appeal to the circuit court was affirmed.
- The case proceeded on de novo review in the circuit court, which found the elevation change and damming supported impairment of Delany’s drainage; Surat appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Surat impermissibly alter the natural watercourse? | Surat’s tiling lowered the watercourse, causing downstream harm. | Under reasonable-use or preexisting-elevation defenses, Surat could reasonably tile given its land. | Yes; board decision upholding alteration was affirmed. |
| Is the relief appropriate where Surat’s tiling allegedly caused upstream damage? | Plaintiff seeks enforcement of drainage rights and restoration of natural flow. | Relief should be limited; damages for basement flooding or hay loss not awarded. | Injunctive relief enforcing drainage easement was appropriate; circuit court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyman County v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Lyman Cty., 14 S.D. 341 (1901) (appealability and party interest in county-board decisions)
- Goos RV Ctr. v. Minnehaha Cty. Comm’n, 2009 S.D. 24 (2009) (de novo review of quasi-judicial decisions)
- Knodel v. Kassel Twp., 1998 S.D. 73 (1998) (upstream-downstream drainage rights; nuisance/injury)
- First Lady, LLC v. JMF Props., LLC, 2004 S.D. 69 (2004) (reasonable-use vs civil-law rule for rural drainage)
- Feistner v. Swenson, 368 N.W.2d 621 (S.D. 1985) (downstream-rights; harm tolerance)
- Tisdel v. Beadle Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2001 S.D. 149 (2001) (clearly erroneous standard for circuit-court findings)
- Hendrickson v. Wagners, Inc., 1999 S.D. 74 (1999) (rural drainage rule applicability)
- Strong v. Atlas Hydraulics, Inc., 2014 S.D. 69 (2014) (reasonable-use rule in urban drainage)
- Riha v. FirsTier Bank, 539 N.W.2d 632 (Neb. 1995) (injunctive relief as proper remedy in drainage disputes)
- Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Schmidt, 180 N.W.2d 233 (1970) (de novo review principles in appellate review of board decisions)