Dean R. Lindflott, Shirley M. Lindflott, Richard A. Lindflott, and Robert D. Lindflott v. Drainage District No. 23, Worth County, Iowa, and Worth County Board of Supervisors ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1579
Filed November 8, 2017
DEAN R. LINDFLOTT,
SHIRLEY M. LINDFLOTT,
RICHARD A. LINDFLOTT, and
ROBERT D. LINDFLOTT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 23,
WORTH COUNTY, IOWA, and
WORTH COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Christopher C. Foy,
Judge.
Landowners appeal the district court decision affirming annexation of their
land into a drainage district. AFFIRMED.
James L. Pray and Benjamin R. Merrill of Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross,
Baskerville, & Schoenebaum, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Robert W. Goodwin of Goodwin Law Office, P.C., Ames, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
The Lindflotts appeal the district court’s decision affirming annexation of
their land into a drainage district. We find the Lindflott land receives a material
benefit from the drainage district, and accordingly the annexation of the land was
proper. We affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Drainage District Number 23, Worth County, Iowa (District 23), was
created in 1916 and drains roughly 7800 acres. The portion of the Lindflotts’
property at issue was not included in any drainage district, although it does
border five different districts. A meandering natural stream (the Stream) flowed
north to south through the Lindflotts’ property, entering the property through
Drainage District Number 7 (District 7) and discharging into District 23. In 1916,
a plan was prepared for straightening and excavating 6.8 miles of the Stream to
increase drainage, and work was completed on a 5.2 mile section. In the 1950’s
the work was continued by private landowners and the excavation ended near
the south edge of the Lindflott property. In 1957, District 7 excavated and
straightened the Stream north of the Lindflott property, increasing the flow of
water into the unimproved portion of the Stream on the Lindflott property.
The Lindflotts bought the property at issue in 1974. In 1975, they had the
portion of the Stream on their land straightened and deepened to enable row
crops to be more efficiently planted. The Stream now entered the Lindflott
property from District 7, flowed as a straight, open ditch through the property
instead of as a shallow meandering stream, and exited into District 23. The
3
portion of the Stream on the Lindflott property matched the depth of the
excavated ditch of District 23
In October 2013, Dean Lindflott petitioned the Worth County Board of
Supervisors (Board) for repairs to a ditch near his property in Worth County,
Iowa. There was some confusion as to exactly which ditch was to be repaired.
Dean claims he intended to have a ditch beginning on the western edge of the
property, an area covered by Drainage District Number 8 (District 8), cleaned, but
a clerk in the auditor’s office erroneously identified the district as District 23
instead. The Board appointed Bolton & Menk, Inc., an engineering firm, to
investigate the proposed repairs. The investigation was completed and a report
presented to the Board on May 9, 2014, with an amendment filed May 28.
During the survey, the engineer was unaware the Lindflott property was not in
any drainage district. Only after filing the report was the error discovered and the
amendment filed describing the benefits imparted to the Lindflott land. The
amended report recommended annexing the Lindflotts’ property between District
8 and District 23. The Lindflotts resisted the annexation claiming, in part, their
land received no material benefit from the drainage district.
The Board approved the motion to annex the Lindflotts’ property. The
Lindflotts appealed to the district court. A trial was held and the district court
affirmed the annexation on August 22, 2016. The Lindflotts now appeal.
II. Standard of Review
Cases tried in equity are reviewed de novo. Commercial Sav. Bank v.
Hawkeye Fed. Sav. Bank, 592 N.W.2d 321, 326 (Iowa 1999). The district court
reviews the Board’s decision in equity, in an appellate capacity, and therefore,
4
the district court’s review was also de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We give
weight to the trial court’s factual findings but are not bound by them. Iowa R.
App. P. 6.904(3)(g).
When reviewing drainage proceedings of boards of
supervisors we have applied three principles: the
drainage statutes shall be liberally construed for the
public benefit; strict compliance with statutory
provisions is required to establish a drainage district,
while substantial compliance is sufficient as to repairs
or improvements; and the procedural requirements
should not be too technically construed.
Hicks v. Franklin Cty. Auditor, 514 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa 1994).
III. Material Benefit
The Lindflotts claim the district court improperly found they received a
material benefit from District 23. After the formation of a drainage district “if the
board becomes convinced that additional lands contiguous to the district” are
benefited by the improvements made by the district or would be benefited by
repairs or improvements to the district, the board of supervisors may annex those
lands into the drainage district. Iowa Code § 468.119 (2013). A qualified
engineer is required “to examine such additional lands, to make a survey and plat
thereof showing their relation, elevation, and condition of drainage . . . specify the
character of the benefits received” and deliver this information in a report to the
board. Id.
If the engineer’s “report recommends the annexation of the lands or any
portion of them, the board shall consider the report, plats, and profiles and if
satisfied that any of the lands are materially benefited by the district and that
annexation is feasible, expedient, and for the public good, it shall proceed [ in the
5
process of annexation].” Id. § 468.120. “Those parties having an interests in the
lands proposed to be annexed have the right . . . to take appeals and to do all
other things to the same extent and in the same manner as provided in the
establishment of an original district.” Id. The Lindflotts claim the engineer’s
report fails to properly articulate a material benefit to base the annexation on.
While the engineer’s report in this case does not fully establish a material benefit
to the property, it does substantially comply with the requirements, and it “should
not be too technically construed.” See Hicks, 514 N.W.2d at 435.
The district court held:
The record before the Court shows that the Lindflott land has
benefitted from the open ditch in [District 23]. The drainage of
surface water provided by the open ditch enabled the Lindflotts to
straighten and excavate [the Stream] across their land, freeing up
more of their land for row crops. By straightening and excavating
the natural waterway across their land, the Lindflotts were also able
to improve the drainage of surface water from their own land and to
speed up the passage of water emptied on their land from the outlet
of [District 7] thereby increasing the productivity of the land.
Granted, the Lindflotts could have straightened and deepened [the
Stream] across their land regardless of whether the open ditch in
[District 23] existed or not; however, the improvement in drainage
resulting from this project would have been much less without the
open ditch to carry water away from their land.
....
When the Lindflotts straightened and excavated [the Stream]
in 1975, they saw fit to match the outlet of their newly constructed
channel with what was then the north end of the open ditch
maintained by [District 23]. The Court views this conduct as an
implicit acknowledgement by the Lindflotts that their land benefited
from [District 23]. The fact that the open ditch maintained by
[District 23] enables the surface water from the Lindflott land to
drain more efficiently constitutes a material benefit to the land and
is sufficient to support its annexation into [District 23] under Iowa
Code Sections 468.119 and 468.120.
The district court did not note any other material benefit to the land in its opinion.
In order to find a material benefit:
6
By the language of the statute the land to be included in the district
must in some way be affected by the improvement, and, to benefit
it, necessarily this must increase its value, either by relieving it of
some burden, or by making it adapted for a different purpose, or
better adapted for the purpose for which it is used.
Zinser v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Buena Vista Cty., 114 N.W. 51, 56 (Iowa 1907).
However, our case law is clear:
A landowner is [not] under some continuing obligation to “pay the
freight” upon his own surface waters after they have left his lands
and until they reach an ultimate outlet. No such obligation exists.
On the contrary, he may freely avail himself of the topography of his
land, and may discharge his surface waters wherever gravitation
naturally carries them, without further concern on his part as to
where they go, for they are no longer his.
Thompson v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Buena Vista Cty., 206 N.W. 624, 626–27 (Iowa
1925).
Therefore, when the topography of land would ensure surface waters
drained off the landowner’s property naturally, a landowner must receive some
benefit other than an outlet for surface waters to have a material benefit.
Straightening of the Waterway
The Lindflotts claim the district court should not have relied on the
straightening and excavating of the Stream to show a material benefit. In the
1950’s, private land owners in District 23 improved the Stream, excavating to a
depth of seven feet below ground level up to the south end of the Lindflott
property. In 1975, the Lindflotts excavated the unimproved portion of the Stream
to a similar depth. The appellees’ claim alleges the Lindflotts would not have
been able to excavate the Stream to such a depth had District 23 not excavated
the Stream immediately south of the Lindflotts’ property. Had the private
landowners in District 23 not excavated, the Stream’s bed at the border of District
7
23 would have been only three or four feet below the surface instead of seven
feet, and therefore the Lindflotts would not have been able to excavate to a depth
of seven feet.
The Lindflotts counter by claiming their work in 1975 was merely to
straighten the Stream. However, the Stream was also deepened to seven feet
during the work to straighten its course. This could not have been achieved with
the same results if the Stream inside District 23 had not been improved. We find
the Lindflotts received a material benefit in the form of their ability to deepen the
Stream, and continue to receive a benefit in the form of increased drainage for
their property. Had the Lindflotts not improved their portion of the Stream, or had
the Lindflotts only straightened the Stream without deepening it, it is likely no
material benefit could be found. The Lindflotts chose to use District 23’s
improvements in order to create an improvement of their own, which would have
been impossible without the district.
However, the excavation of the portion of the Stream within District 23 was
done by private landowners. There is no evidence in the record showing the
private landowners were reimbursed for this work or compensated in any way.
The Lindflotts claim if any benefit is received, and we have found a benefit is
received, it is received from the work of the private landowners’ improvement to
the Stream and not from District 23. But, District 23 is the improvements to
drainage. In essence District 23 is the open ditches, tiles, and other drainage
systems within the designated area. Because District 23 is the improvement to
the Stream, regardless of who created the improvement, and District 23
8
maintains the improvement, including a clean out of the Stream in 1976, the
Lindflotts have and continue to receive a material benefit from the district.
Finally, Richard Lindflott testified there were improvements, specifically
washouts on the banks of the Stream and trees and brush along the banks,
which would enhance drainage and reduce sediment in the Stream. District 23
would be able to complete, monitor, and maintain these improvements.
Therefore, annexation of their property to the district is equitable. Because we
have found annexation proper on this ground, we need not address the Lindflotts’
other claims. We affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.