Wallis v. Board of Supervisors
Wallis v. Board of Supervisors
Opinion of the Court
The district in question is known in the record as “The Soldier Valley Drainage District.” The Soldier river runs westerly toward the Missouri as its final outlet. The principal part of its course runs through the highlands which form the east bank of the Missouri river bottom. It has a watershed of three hundred and eighty square miles. It throws its waters upon the Missouri bottom at the foot of the bluffs at a point nearly seven miles distant from the river. Por want of a current and
Statement of Facts. — A great many of the facts in this case are either undisputed or established by the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, and the following facts are, as appellant contends, substantially beyond dispute: The Soldier river emerges from the bluffs a little below the town of Orson and the proposed Soldier Valley drainage ditch in controversy in this action, which will hereafter be called the Wattles ditch, starts a little over a mile above that place in the northwest corner of section .34, thence running in a southwesterly direction following the general course of the Soldier river to a point a little over a mile below where it emerges from the hills. From thence it turns westerly, almost at right angles to the course of natural drainage, running slightly south of west for about three miles, thence making another turn and bearing southwest for a little less than two miles, until it enters the Missouri river, the last stage being down in what is known as the old bed of Dry Lake. The Soldier river as it now flows runs in a winding course almost south after it passes the town of Orson for about seven miles, thence it bears southwest under the Chicago & Northwestern Kailway track; the present current of the Soldier river crossing under the Northwestern Kailway track about seven miles south of the crossing of the Wattles ditch under the said railway. The town of Mondamin is located on the railway about midway between the crossing of the Wattles ditch and the crossing of the present Soldier river.
The Loveless and Noyes Levee, as a road runs from the railroad track east of the center of section 13 and in a northeasterly direction, joining the highland north of the proposed Wattles ditch. This levee, together with the strip of higher land north of it and the railway grades and higher land south of it running down, almost to the present crossing of the Soldier river, forms the so-called high line
The evidence shows: That the Soldier river as it now runs after leaving the hills has at all times within the memory of the witnesses been a stream without any very high or clearly-defined banks. That during the last twenty years at numerous places along its course trees or other obstructions had been put in the stream, and the banks were cut for the purpose of causing it to overflow and fill up the surrounding land with sediment. By reason of this fact, and the fact that the river naturally bears a considerable amount of silt at flood time, its channel has been caused to fill up to such an extent that a very slight raise will make it overflow. The land near the river has by reason of the deposit of sediment become generally higher than the land further back, and this fact, together with the general filling up of the channel, causes the water to overflow and extend, in times of ordinary flood, practically from the high line to the bluffs or across the entire
It appears without controversy in the evidence that substantially all of the land in the Soldier Valley east of the high line and Chicago & Northwestern Railroad and south of the proposed line of the Wattles ditch is subject to frequent overflow, and is practically worthless for that reason. It shows that substantially all of the land west of the high line and railroad and extending down some distance below Burcham’s Lake is good farm land worth from $15 to $125 an acre, and is not subject to overflow, and raises a crop every year. It also appears from the evidence of the same witnesses above cited that east' of the railroad track and between that and the elbow or bend the line of the proposed Wattles ditch marks the north boundary of . the overflow land.
We quote from appellee’s brief as follows:
The proposed Soldier Valley drainage district, the location of the controversy involved in this action, lies on Missouri river bottom in Harrison county, Iowa, and constitutes a tract of land lying between the Missouri river on the west and the high bluffs on the east. This entire body of land, approximately six miles in width by twelve miles in length, is the ordinary low bottom land that is found along the Missouri river. There is scarcely four feet difference in the elevation of any of it, and this difference is represented by a gentle rise toward the Missouri river and toward the bluffs from a central line. Extending from north to south approximately through the center of this tract of land is the right of way of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company or what is known as its Council Bluffs & Sioux City line. The town of Mondamin is located approximately in the center of this tract, and from Mondamin extends another line of railroad owned by the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company toward the north and parallel to its Sioux City line for a distance of about two miles, and thence northeasterly through the proposed drainage district through the town of Orson, located approximately at the northeast corner of the pro
"The Soldier river enters upon the Missouri river 'bottom at the northeast corner of the district. It forms the drainage for about three hundred and eighty square miles of high lands. All of this territory drains toward the bed of the Soldier riv.er in the hills by steep bluffs and the fall of the river from its source to the bottom land is very great — from five to twelve feet to the mile. When- the
The problem presented for the successful drainage.of this district requires that by some scheme the ditch' shall be so constructed to receive the flood waters of the Soldier at the point where it enters upon the bottom land and carry 'these waters to the Missouri river as an outlet, thereby preventing the spreading of the flood waters over the bottom land of the district. This is the prime factor for consideration. The other drainage problems are blit
The trial court filed a written opinion in the case. It is comprehensive and thorough in its consideration of the entire record. The following findings of facts and conclusions of the law appear therein:
(1) That the Soldier; river drains approximately three hundred and eighty square miles of territory, having its source in Monona county, and flowing in a southwesterly direction through the western portion of Harrison county and emptying into the Missouri river in Cincinnati township .about four miles southwest of the town of Modal e. It emerges from the hills and flows out upon the Missouri river bottom near the town of Orson, and thence pursues-a tortuous course in a southerly and southwesterly direction down and across said bottom to its mouth. In its upper course it has a current of some swiftness, and it carries a large amount of silt in times of high water. When it reaches the bottom lands, the fall is reduced to such a degree that a large amount of the silt is deposited.
(2) That the natural course of drainage of surface and .overflow .water from the point where- ¡said stream emerges from the hills is toward the southwest, and in the general direction of the flow of said stream. In times of high water, however, the whole of said bottom land east of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway line is inundated, and but for the erection of a levee in section 12 — 70—45, which is known as the ‘Loveless Levee,’ and for the embankments of the said railway company some considerable portion of said overflow would find its way westward from said point of emergence as aforesaid, through said section 12 and westward to the Missouri river.
(3) That the whole of the Missouri river bottom land lying west of the Soldier and between said stream and the Missouri river is of a very level Character, there being scarcely more than four feet difference in elevation between the highest and the lowest upon any parallel of latitude. The lowest lands lying in said tract are those situated in a strip practically parallel with the present channel of the Soldier, and whose eastern boundary is about one-half mile west thereof and whose western boundary is about one and one-half miles west of said channel. There are also several lakes of some -consequence in the southwestern portion of the proposed drainage 'district which are proper subjects of drainage. The low tract above mentioned is in general
(4) That on August 10, 1909, a petition was filed in the auditor’s office of this county, signed by a large number of landowners whose lands are embraced within the drainage district in question, praying the establishment of a drainage ditch or ditches to divert the Soldier river and to drain the lands of the petitioners, and other lands located in the townships therein named. J. S. Wattles, Esq., was, by the board of supervisors, appointed as engineer .to make a survey and report upon the feasibility of the project and to devise a system of proposed drainage and to recommend the extent of the proposed drainage district. On September 13, 1909, Mr. Wattles filed a report wherein he recommended a system -of drainage as follows:
First. The construction of a channel to divert the waters of the Soldier river to be known as the ‘Soldier Out-Off,’ which would take the waters of said stream where the -same crosses the south line of the N. W. % of the N. W. % of section 34 — 81—44, and carry the same in a southwesterly direction and empty the same into the Missouri river near the center of the S. E. % of section 15 — 80—45. This channel would be six and sixty-six one-hundredths miles in length, from where it -intercepts the Soldier river to station 214, a point near where said proposed ditch crosses the north line of section 18 — 80 —44, said channel is to be thirty-five feet in width at the bottom, slope of side one to one and berms fifteen feet in width. The fall from the Soldier to Station 214 is about three feet per mile and the fall from Station 214 to the Missouri river about .one and two-tenths feet per mile. This channel is to be constructed for the purpose of carrying the waters of the Soldier river.
Second.. The second improvement contemplated by the plan of Mr. Wattles is the extension and enlargement of the ‘Spooner Ditch.’ This -is an old ditch running south
Third. The third improvement contemplated in the plan in question is what is known as the ‘West Soldier ditch,’ commencing near the northwest corner of the N. E. % of the S. W. % of section 9 — 80—44, and running south four and thirty-five one-hundredths miles to a connection with the Nelson ditch in the N. E. y of the S. W. of section 4 — 79—44. This ditch is planned to be eight feet on the bottom, and is expected to take care of the surface water which may fall on the land east of the old channel of the Soldier, and such overflow from the Soldier itself as finds its way down on that side of the' old channel.
Fourth. The fourth improvement planned is called the ‘West Soldier, ditch,’ and commences at the center of section 29 — 80—44 and runs south to a.junction with the Nelson ditch in section 5 — 79—44, a distance of two and one-half miles. The bottom width of this ditch is six feet, and it will serve in the main for an outlet for tile drainage.
Fifth. The fifth improvement planned is known as the ‘Nelson ditch,’ commencing near the quarter section
Sixth. The sixth improvement planned is called the ‘Burcham ditch,’ and commencing in the N. E. 14 of sections 26 — 80—45 it will run through a low section of the valley in a southerly direction through Burcham Lake, Willow Lake, and Lynn Lake,' and empty into the old bed of the Soldier in section 14 — 19—45. It would be about five miles in length, and the bottom as excavated would be six feet.
Seventh. The part known as ‘Pratt Lake ditch’ is the seventh on the plan in question, and it consists of a ditch six feet wide at the bottom, running from a point near the quarter section corner between sections 3 and 10 —19—45, and running southeasterly through Pratt Lake and discharging into the Soldier channel in S. E. % of N. E. ^4 section 14 — -19-—45.
To this report of Mr. Wattles, the appellants, on October 26, 1909, filed written objections, and the matter came on for hearing before the board of supervisors, and on December 3, 1909, the said board found said petition was sufficient, that the establishment of the drainage district and the construction of the ditches as proposed by Mr. Wattles under the petition were matters of public necessity and utility, and ordered that said drainage district be established and said ditches constructed.
Erom this finding and order of the board of supervisors the appellants have appealed to this court. The objections filed before the board of supervisors, and upon which this appeal is based, and which objections alone this court can consider, are as follows:
(1) That the lands of the objectors within the proposed drainage district are not benefited by the establishment and construction of the improvements, that such lands are not subject to overflow from the Soldier, and that such lands should not have been included within the drainage district.
(2) That the Soldier river cut-off, which is the princi
(3) That the board of supervisors were estopped from the establishment. of the drainage district and the establishment of the drainage system in question by various records and decrees prior to the hearing at the time in question.
(4) That chapter 68 of the Laws of the Thirtieth General Assembly and chapter 118 of the Acts of the Thirty-Third General Assembly are unconstitutional, null, and void.
(5) That the engineer appointed by the board of supervisors was not a competent and disinterested engineer as required by the law.
With reference to these objections the court finds as follows:
(1) That, while there are some tracts included in the drainage district which are not subject to overflow by the waters of the Soldier river, the court is pot warranted in finding that they are not at least in some slight degree benefited in the matter of surroundings and environment by the improvement of those lands which have heretofore been inundated and the crops upon which have been drowned out to so great an extent for many years. The court will be warranted in assuming that, when benefits are assessed, those lands which are but slightly benefited will be but slightly burdened by such assessments, and that those which are to receive greater benefit will bear the greater portion of the burden of the improvement.
(2) That, while the evidence shows that the proposed Soldier cut-off, as planned by Mr. Wattles, does not follow the line of natural drainage, it is more practical and
(a) It will be much shorter. The proposed channel is but six and six-tenths miles long, while a channel southward can not be so constructed as to carry 'the waters of the Soldier river to the Missouri river in less than sixteen miles. The advantages of the shortest channel are manifold. In the first place, flood waters are carried out through the channel in a much shorter period of time and the lands above so much sooner relieved. In the second place, the Soldier is a great silt-bearing stream. Whenever the flow of silt-bearing water is checked, the -deposit of silt begins. No plan for a channel can be devised for the waters of the Soldier which does not have an upper portion of greater fall than the lower portion. The Wattles plan contemplates an upper reach of two and six-tenths miles which will have a fall of three and seventeen one-hundredths feet per mile, and a lower reach of four miles with a fall of one and twenty-three one-hundredths feet per mile. The plan for the channel along the line of natural drainage towards the south and southwest contemplates a ditch about sixteen miles in length, five and five-tenths of which would have a fall of three and seventeen one-hundredths feet per mile, and the remaining portion a fall of one and twenty-three one-hundredths feet per mile. It does not. require any argument to convince one 'that the short stream will carry more silt into the Missouri river than the longer one. This means that the shorter will keep more free from the accumulation of silt, and will require less attention ‘to keep it cleaned out. In other words, such a channel will be much more apt to keep itself open, and will not as readily clog or choke up with mud and debris. In the third place, the shorter the channel the less will be the opportunity for the stream to break over its banks or.levees in 'times of flood. It not only has less length of bank to be guarded, but there is this added element: The upper portion of the channel having a greater fall per mile will have a greater current and will deliver the water to the lower portion with a greater degree of swiftness than is maintained in the lower channel. If the lower portion of the channel be long and the ' stream
(b) The cost of the single channel southward in the line of natural drainage would be equal to or more than the entire cost of Wattles’ plan. The plan adopted not only provides for diverting the water of the Soldier and carrying it to an outlet, but it also provides for a comprehensive system of surface drainage which will furnish outlets for tile drains in many thousands of acres of what ought to be exceedingly fertile lands. The plans proposed by the appellants provide- for a channel for the Soldier only. Whatever surface drainage is to be thereafter provided would entail additional expense, even if possible for such surface drainage to be effectually accomplished— a matter of very grave doubt.
(c) Owing to the low character of a considerable portion of the valley through which the channel proposed by the appellants must be constructed, it is impossible to construct a channel 'of much depth and much of the flood waters must necessarily be carried above the natural surface -of the ground confined only by levees or embankments. Tor a distance of six or eight miles most of the water in times of ordinary flood must be carried between levees several feet above the surrounding lands. Such a plan would not be desirable in the case of a stream like the river in question, if it could in any manner be avoided.
(d) The channel down the line of natural drainage, being necessarily shallow and flanked by high levees, would not readily admit of surface drainage from the adjacent lands and tile drainage would scarcely be possible. Moreover, on account of the tendency to deposit silt, as hereinbefore referred 'to, the bed of the channel would gradually grow higher until surface drainage would be impossible.
(e) The cut-off, being upon higher ground, can be cut more deeply into the solid earth, and it does not require
(f) Danger of overflow will be limited to the south levee or embankment of the cut-off, and the plan provides for a levee of greater strength" on that si<ie. Overflow to the north can not do much serious damage, as the ground is higher to the north, and the water must necessarily find its way back into the ‘cut-off.’ Under the other plan, both levees would be subject to overflow, and both must be guarded.
(g) With the ordinary waters of the Soldier river cared for and taken out of this low, flat area, the matter of'drainage under usual conditions is easily solved.
(3) The order of the district court at the October term, 1906, does not constitute an adjudication of .the questions herein involved, for the reason that no final judgment was entered; the court merely referring the matter back to the board for further investigation. The decree of January, 1909, is not an adjudication of the matters herein, for the reason that such decree is based upon proceedings had before the Act of the Thirty-Third General Assembly was in effect, and. such decree is based upon the law as it then existed, and is based upon the fact that the law, as it then existed, required the improvement to be constructed in the line of natural drainage. This rule has been changed by chapter 118 of the Acts of the Thirty-Third General Assembly. The action of the board of supervisors in dismissing the petition on June 10, 1907, would not constitute an adjudication for the reason that such act of the said board was a legislative act, and not judicial.
(4) Provision is made in said acts for payment of damages suffered by a property owner by reason of the diversion of a stream in the flow of which he has an interest, and said acts are not unconstitutional by reason of any failure to provide compensation for property taken. That said acts provide a tribunal before which the question of whether or not certain lands are benefited by the improvement' is determined, and further provide for notice upon the property owner prior to such adjudication. Such tribunal has the authority and power to determine whether or not such land will be benefited by the improvement,
(5) It is claimed in the next place that the engineer appointed by the board of supervisors to draft the plan .and make the survey was not a competent and disinterested engineer as required by the statute; but there is nothing in the evidence to sustain a charge of incompetency or interest such as to disqualify him from serving.
We have read the large record with much care, and find ourselves in substantial agreement with the trial court.
Nor is it true that the objectors are prevented from claiming damages for the diversion of the watercourse, in so far as such new watercourse is thrown upon them. We are impressed from the record that the objections of the objectors are based to a large extent upon their apprehensions that the project may prove to be an engineering failure, and that the banks and dikes may not restrain the water, and that the water thus brought into their neighborhood may escape from the inclosure and flood their lands. Every engineering project presents to some degree a pos
•It is also urged that the objectors have a vested right in the protection of the Noyes levee, and that their right in this respect has been adjudicated (Loveless v. Ruffcorn, supra), and that this project is an interference with such adjudication. But the right of the objectors to the Noyes levee and its protection is no greater than their right and title to their lands; and; as their lands may be taken in such a proceeding as this; we see no reason why their right in the levee may not be subordinated in the same manner to the higher public right.
We will not undertake a discussion of the relative merits of the engineering plan adopted by the board of supervisors and that presented by the objectors. The relative merit of the plans is largely a matter of expert opinion. It is sufficient to say that the plan adopted appears to us, as it did to the trial court, the more feasible and practicable of the two. That it involves some menace to the appellants must be conceded. It is perhaps true, also, that the larger benefit from its operation will be obtained by the lands lying to the east and south. But this does not furnish a sufficient reason why the objectors may forbid it. The Biblical philosophy that “no man liveth unto himself” has much illustration incident to the establishment of drainage districts, and nowhere more, perhaps, than when such district is established in the flats of the Missouri.
The point is formally made that chapter 68, Acts Thirtieth General Assembly, and chapter Í18, of Acts Thirty-Third General Assembly, providing for the diver
Upon the whole case, we fully agree with the conclusion of the trial court.
The order entered below is therefore affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- John Wallis v. Board of Supervisors of Harrison County
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published