Hardin County Drainage District 55, Division 3, Lateral 10 v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 11–1637
Filed February 1, 2013
HARDIN COUNTY DRAINAGE
DISTRICT 55, DIVISION 3,
LATERAL 10,
Appellee,
vs.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Kurt J.
Stoebe, Judge.
A railroad appeals from a decision of the district court ordering it
to pay for the costs of replacing a collapsed clay drainage tile under its
roadbed and related damages and attorney fees. DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED FOR DISMISSAL.
Bruce E. Johnson of Cutler Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Michael A. Smith and Shean D. Fletchall of Craig, Smith & Cutler,
LLP, Eldora, for appellee.
2
ZAGER, Justice.
In this appeal, we must determine under Iowa’s laws relating to
drainage districts, who is responsible for the costs to repair and improve
old underground drainage tiles which run under a railroad roadbed.
Hardin County Drainage District 55 (Hardin County) argues that the
Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific) should be responsible for
repair of a subterranean drainage tile found under its roadbed, as
railroads are statutorily required to pay for the construction and
maintenance of culverts and bridges occurring at natural waterways on
the railroad’s right-of-way. Union Pacific counters that underground
drainage tiles are not “culverts” as defined by the relevant statute.
The district court agreed with the drainage district, finding the
railroad breached its statutory duty to repair the drainage tile. For the
reasons set forth below, we disagree, finding the drainage tile does not fit
the statutory definition of a culvert obligating the railroad to pay for the
necessary repairs. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district
court and remand the case to the district court for dismissal.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History.
Due to ancient glacier activity, much of north central and
northwest Iowa consists of land that simply does not drain well. Up until
drainage systems were installed, the land was either very wet or
consisted of swamps. In order to transform these lands into the
productive farm land that exists today, farmers began tiling their fields to
allow subsurface drainage. As early as the turn of the century, the Iowa
legislature recognized that in order to efficiently handle the
administration of drainage, a statutory scheme was necessary. What
resulted was Iowa Code chapter 468, entitled Levee and Drainage
Districts and Improvements.
3
The railroad was built in Hardin County in 1910. Drainage
District 55 was likely established between 1915 and 1920 in Hardin
County. Drainage districts are divided into divisions and further broken
down by laterals. The one in issue here is the Lateral 10 tile line, which
became a part of Drainage District 55 in 1917. This lateral serves
approximately forty-four landowners, and the tile in question services
between 560 and 580 acres of farmland. This tile carries both surface
and subsurface water from the west side of the railroad tracks to the east
side.
In the spring of 2007, workers for Union Pacific noticed a void in
the roadbed under its tracks. In compliance with federal railroad safety
regulations, Union Pacific workers repaired the railroad bed by adding
rock ballast to fill the void. The rock caused the already damaged drain
tile to become plugged, thereby preventing drainage and causing flooding
to farmland on the west side of the roadbed.
It is estimated that the clay underground drainage tile that is at
issue in this case was installed around 1914, so it has been in use for
nearly a century. It is also thought to have been originally installed by
one of the adjacent landowners, not the railroad. It is likely there are
hundreds of these underground drainage tiles that cross the Union
Pacific railroad bed in Hardin County alone. There are no records as to
the location of these drainage tiles. Additionally, this particular drainage
tile was located 6.62 feet below the bottom of the ditch on the west side
of the railroad bed. Union Pacific claims it had no knowledge of the
existence of this drain tile, and it is not visible from an inspection of the
area. There is a railroad culvert carrying surface water from the west
side of the roadbed through to the east side located not far from the
disputed drain tile.
4
On April 12, 2007, the drainage district provided Union Pacific
with the statutory notice under Iowa Code section 468.109 requiring the
railroad to rebuild and reconstruct the damaged tile. It was initially
difficult to discuss this repair with Union Pacific. However, it was later
determined by the drainage district that the existing tile line had
insufficient capacity to drain the land it served, even in good repair, so it
decided to replace the existing fourteen-inch drain tile with a twenty-one
inch inside-diameter carrier pipe enclosed within a twenty-eight inch
steel carrier pipe. While Union Pacific did not object to the proposed
repair or replacement, it consistently denied that it was statutorily
obligated to pay for it.
After completion of the repairs and improvements, Union Pacific
refused to pay the drainage district. As a result, the drainage district
filed a petition at law claiming the railroad breached its statutory duty to
repair; was negligent in its failure to discover the drainage tile; was
negligent in its ballast repair, which caused further damage to the drain
tile and resulted in crop loss; and claimed further relief. The matter was
tried to the court. A decree was entered by the court on July 18, 2011.
In its order, the court awarded damages to the drainage district in the
amount of $47,871 for the costs of the construction, $3055 for permit
fees, $16,788 for surveying, engineering and construction observation,
and $300.64 for administration and publication costs. Additionally, the
district court entered judgment against Union Pacific on a negligence
theory for crop loss in the amount of $22,402, and attorney fees of
$21,553.46. After timely posttrial motions were denied, Union Pacific
appealed. We retained the case.
5
II. Standard of Review.
The case was tried at law, and thus, the scope of review is for
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (2009); Johnson v. Kaster, 637
N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 2001) (“Generally, we will hear a case on appeal
in the same manner in which it was tried in the district court.”). 1 Under
this standard of review, “[t]he trial court’s findings carry the force of a
special verdict and are binding on us if supported by substantial
evidence.” Johnson, 637 N.W.2d at 177. We are not, however, bound by
the trial court’s legal conclusions. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Petersen,
679 N.W.2d 571, 575 (Iowa 2004). To the extent that key questions in
this appeal involve statutory construction, our review is for correction of
legal error. Chi. Cent. & Pac. R.R. v. Calhoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors,
816 N.W.2d 367, 370 (Iowa 2012).
III. Statutory Framework.
Iowa Code chapter 468 governs the creation and function of
drainage districts. The purpose of drainage districts is to build and
maintain drainage improvements that provide for the “drainage and
improvement of agricultural and other lands, thereby making them
tillable or suitable for profitable use.” Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. v. Mosquito
Drainage Dist., 190 Iowa 162, 162, 180 N.W. 170, 170 (1920). “The
drainage of surface waters from agricultural lands . . . shall be presumed
to be a public benefit and conducive to the public health, convenience,
and welfare.” Iowa Code § 468.2 (2007). To achieve this goal, counties
may “establish a drainage district and . . . construct whatever [drainage
improvement] is necessary for the public health, convenience, or
1Even though the district court’s decision was captioned as a “Decree,” the
entire procedural framework was as an action at law, and no one has argued it was not
tried as a law action.
6
welfare.” Hicks v. Franklin Cnty. Auditor, 514 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa
1994) (citing Iowa Code § 468.1).
Once a drainage improvement has been installed, it will eventually
need to be repaired. Section 468.126 requires the board of supervisors
to keep the improvement in repair in the following manner:
The board at any time on its own motion, without notice,
may order done whatever is necessary to restore or maintain
a drainage . . . improvement in its original efficiency or
capacity, and for that purpose may remove silt and debris,
[or] repair any damaged structures . . . .
Iowa Code § 468.126(1)(a).
The board is also allowed to consider replacing a tile line rather
than repairing a tile line, if laying a new tile line would be “more
economical.” Id. § 468.126(1)(b). Instead of repairing an old
improvement, the board may elect to construct a new improvement, so
long as more rigorous procedural requirements are met. Id. § 468.126(4).
The costs of repairs or new improvements must be paid from the funds of
the drainage district. Id. § 468.127. If there are insufficient funds on
hand, “the board within two years shall levy an assessment sufficient to
pay the outstanding indebtedness and leave the balance which the board
determines is desirable as a sinking fund to pay maintenance and repair
expenses.” Id.
Drainage district improvements must necessarily cross railroad
rights-of-way. Sections 469.109 to 468.112 address how the cost of
these intersections will be allocated between the district and the railroad.
See Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Webster Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 880 F.
Supp. 1290, 1295 (N.D. Iowa), aff’d, 71 F.3d 265 (8th Cir. 1995). When
a proposed improvement crosses a right-of-way, section 468.109 requires
the county auditor to serve notice on the railroad, indicating both the
7
location of the improvement and the plans for how the improvement will
cross the right-of-way. Iowa Code § 468.109; Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co.,
880 F. Supp. at 1295. The railroad company is then directed
to construct such improvement according to said plans and
specifications at the place designated, across its right-of-
way, and to build and construct or rebuild and reconstruct
the necessary culvert or bridge where any ditch, drain, or
watercourse crosses its right of way, so as not to obstruct,
impede, or interfere with the free flow of the water therein,
within thirty days from the time of the service of such notice
upon it.
Iowa Code § 468.109. The construction must be done “according to the
plans and specifications prepared by the engineer” of the drainage
district and must be done within the time specified. Id. § 468.110.
Should the railroad fail to construct the culvert or bridge within thirty
days, the board may construct the intersection itself and collect the
costs, including any necessary attorney’s fees, from the railroad. Id.
§§ 468.109, .112.
If the culvert or bridge that is needed at the intersection is located
at a natural waterway or a place provided by the railroad, then the cost
of the bridge or culvert must be borne by the railroad without
reimbursement from the drainage district. Id. § 468.111. Our statutory
scheme favors levees, ditches, and drains to be placed along the “general
course of the natural streams and watercourses or in the general course
of natural drainage of the lands.” Id. § 468.4. If the culvert or bridge is
not at a natural watercourse or a place chosen by the railroad, then the
railroad must be reimbursed for the cost of the construction ordered by
the district in the notice provided in section 468.109. See Chi., R.I. & P.
Ry. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 194 N.W. 266, 268 (1923). While the railroad is
not reimbursed for whatever costs it incurs in constructing such a bridge
or culvert, it must be reimbursed for any costs it incurs in constructing
8
other improvements that are ordered by the district under sections
468.109 to 468.112.
Our analysis then centers on two issues. First, we must determine
whether the tile in question is a culvert within the meaning of chapter
468. If we make the determination that it is a culvert, we must then
determine whether this was a “natural waterway.” If the tile is both a
culvert and is located on a natural waterway or a place chosen by the
railroad, it is the responsibility of Union Pacific to pay for repairs to the
tile. Alternatively, if we find that the tile is not a culvert, or that it does
not occur at a natural waterway or a place chosen by the railroad, the
drainage district is obligated to pay for repairs to the tile.
This issue was presented to us recently. See Chi. Cent. & Pac.
R.R., 816 N.W.2d at 369–70. However, in Chicago Central, we declined to
reach the issue because the plaintiff did not seek the appropriate
remedy. Id. at 374 (holding that a mandamus action, not a claim for
reimbursement, was the appropriate remedy for a railroad demanding
that a drainage district repair an underground tile).
IV. Analysis.
A. Statutory Construction. At its heart, this case involves
statutory construction. When approaching a statutory construction
issue, we “begin . . . with a firm understanding of our task. It is only to
determine the intent of the legislature.” Andover Volunteer Fire Dep’t v.
Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co., 787 N.W.2d 75, 81 (Iowa 2010). Additionally,
“[w]e generally presume words contained in a statute are used in their
ordinary and usual sense with the meaning commonly attributed to
them.” Gregory v. Second Injury Fund, 777 N.W.2d 395, 399 (Iowa 2010).
“In discerning the meaning of an ambiguous provision, we construe
9
terms according to their accepted usage when they are not defined in the
statute.” Id.
We also examine statutory language holistically.
To ascertain the legislature’s intent, we will assess the
statute in its entirety, not just isolated words or phrases,
and we will seek to interpret it so that no part of it is
rendered redundant or irrelevant. We strive for a reasonable
interpretation that best achieves the statute’s purpose and
avoids absurd results. . . .
Legislative intent is ascertained not only from the
language used but also from the statute’s subject matter, the
object sought to be accomplished, the purpose to be served,
underlying policies, remedies provided, and the
consequences of the various interpretations.
State v. McCullah, 787 N.W.2d 90, 94–95 (Iowa 2010) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Intent of the Legislature.
1. What the legislature intended to accomplish. We do not interpret
words or phrases in a vacuum. In order to determine what the
legislature intended to be considered a culvert, we must begin with an
analysis of what the legislature intended to accomplish with its statutory
scheme. Chapter 468 is designed to encourage the “drainage of surface
waters from agricultural lands and all other lands.” Iowa Code
§ 468.2(1). As noted above, the primary responsibility for this belongs to
the drainage districts. Id. § 468.1. Here, we are presented with a
drainage tile of unknown origin, maintained in order to drain surface and
subterranean water for agricultural purposes. The railroad is
responsible for constructing or repairing culverts and bridges where the
railroad’s presence obstructs the natural flow of water. Id. § 468.111.
We are mindful of the entire statutory scheme the legislature
imposed when determining the intent of the legislature. See McCullah,
10
787 N.W.2d at 94. Hardin County argues the railroad should repair any
drainage structure that is located at or under its right-of-way. We do not
believe this is what the legislature intended. It is reasonable to require a
railroad to bear the initial expense of constructing or reconstructing
structures such as culverts and bridges, to maintain the natural flow of
water through its roadbed. It is equally reasonable to require the
railroad to keep these culverts and bridges in proper repair to allow the
natural flow of water. Iowa Code § 468.111. The legislature clearly
intended that the railroad bear the expense of ensuring that water would
continue as it would without the obstruction of a railroad. See id.
§ 468.111. However, this responsibility is limited by statute to culverts
and bridges. Id. §§ 468.111, .113. This also makes sense, as the
railroad should not be responsible for artificial underground drainage
improvements that would be needed whether the railroad was there or
not. The costs of these repairs are, by statute, the responsibility of the
drainage districts. Id. § 468.126. The statutory scheme described above
supports this conclusion. It gives primary responsibility to the drainage
district for the repair, maintenance, and improvement of the drainage
systems under its control. On the other hand, it gives the railroad
responsibility for constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining the
culverts and bridges which cross its roadbeds. See id. § 468.126; id.
§ 468.109.
Our prior caselaw supports this allocation of financial
responsibility as well in a situation not governed by this statute. “If
waters that do not belong there are brought upon that area, [and] it is
not shown to have been through any act or fault of [the defendant
railroad company], [the defendant railroad company] cannot be held
11
responsible for it.” Hinkle v. Chi., R.I. & P. Ry., 227 N.W. 419, 420
(1929).
2. Definition of a culvert. Chapter 468 provides several definitions
to aid in statutory interpretation, but it does not include a definition of
the word “culvert.” Iowa Code § 468.3. The dictionary defines culvert as
“a transverse drain or waterway (as under a road, railroad, or canal).”
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 553 (unabr. ed. 2002). In
an unpublished decision, our court of appeals examined a similar issue
in the context of drainage ditches and found multiple definitions of the
word “culvert” that included the word “drain.” Chi. Cent. & Pac. R.R. v.
Calhoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 10–0061, 2010 WL 4484202, at *5
(Iowa Ct. App. 2010), aff’d, 816 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 2012) (providing
multiple definitions of the word “culvert”). Similarly, the U.S.
Department of Transportation publishes a Culvert Inspection Manual that
the district court admitted into evidence. The definition provided there
indicates a culvert is “[a] drainage opening beneath an embankment,
usually a pipe, designed to flow according to open channel equation.”
Like the other definitions that include the word “drain,” it indicates that
a culvert is a very specific type of drain.
Iowa Code Chapter 468 uses both terms—“drain” and “culvert.”
The fact that our legislature uses the term “drain,” particularly in the
context of the railroad, demonstrates that it understood that drains,
such as the drainage tile in question, regularly crossed railroad rights-of-
way. See, e.g., Iowa Code § 468.5 (“When any such ditch or drain
crosses any railroad right-of-way. . .”); id. § 468.109 (listing “levee, ditch,
drain, or watercourse” as forms of water transportation). The dictionary
defines drain as “[a]n artificial channel by means of which liquid or other
12
matter is drained or carried off.” Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary 685 (unabr. ed. 2002).
In contrast to a very general dictionary definition, Union Pacific
presented testimony from Mark McCune, the railroad’s Director of
Structures Design, as to the definition of a culvert recognized in the field
of railroad engineering. He testified that a culvert’s function is to
“provide passage from one side of the railroad embankment to the other,
normally for water.” Additionally, he testified that each end of a culvert
opens to the air. In contrast, the drainage tile at issue here is part of a
larger system of tiles that does not open to the air. Further, McCune
testified that the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association (AREMA) publishes a technical manual that indicates the
technical definition of culvert in the railroad context excludes subsurface
water. Specifically, it refers to a culvert as “being an enclosed channel
substituted for an open waterway.”
Hydrologist Chris Vokt presented a very similar definition. After
being asked about the technical definition of a culvert, he testified,
“Culverts typically found under railroads and roads, open both ends.
And the culverts are open to the air. They pass surface to surface runoff,
and they typically just extend from one side of the embankment to the
other.” Here, of course, the drainage tile specifically exists to drain
subsurface waters and does not function in the manner in which a
culvert is by definition intended to function.
While not dispositive, the legislature has defined culverts in
another context. As used in the highway context, the Code defines a
culvert to
include[] any structure not classified as a bridge which
provides an opening under the roadway, except that this
term does not include tile crossing the road, or intakes
13
thereto, where tile is part of a tile line or system designed to
aid subsurface drainage.
Iowa Code § 309.1(3).
The legislature has also discussed the responsibility for railroad
crossings in other contexts. Iowa Code section 327F.2 provides that
“[e]very railroad company shall build, maintain, and keep in good repair
all bridges, abutments, or other construction necessary to enable it to
cross over or under any canal, watercourse. . . .” Finally, Iowa Code
section 476.27 requires other public and/or government utilities to be
responsible for costs of construction and maintenance of underground
pipe railroad crossings. If the legislature had intended Iowa Code section
468.111 to apply to all drains, it would have simply used the word
“drain” rather than culvert or bridge. It used the word “drain” in other
sections of the chapter, including in the context of railroads.
Additionally, the more specific definition of culvert does not apply to the
drainage tile in question. Based upon the plain definition of a culvert,
and the language and structure of the legislation, we conclude that the
drainage tile is not a culvert in the context of Iowa Code section 468.111.
Because we reach the conclusion that the drainage tile is not a
culvert, we need not reach the remaining issue of whether the drainage
tile occurs at a natural waterway or in a place chosen by the railroad.
The railroad is not responsible for the repairs to this drainage tile or the
other related damages. Additionally, based on our decision, we need not
reach the other issues raised by the parties on appeal.
V. Disposition.
For the reasons stated above, we hold the railroad is not statutorily
obligated to pay for repairs or improvements to the subterranean
14
drainage tile at issue. We reverse the judgment of the district court and
remand for entry of an order dismissing this case with prejudice.
DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED FOR DISMISSAL.