FLOOD02324 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I "The defendants as owners of a dominant estate have a legal, as well as a natural, easement for servitude on the lands downstream for drainage of surface waters flowing in its natural course and manner. In the present case the water flowed in its natural course down the Kalsevic Channel; the conduit did not change the course nor materially change the manner of the flow." In the case of Hankins v. Borland, supra, our Supreme Court again stated the modified civil rule, but, added a twist as follows: "The modified civil rule which has been adopted by Colorado has been summarized as follows: natural drainage conditions may be altered by an upper proprietor provided the water is not sent down in manner or quantity to do more harm than formerly." (Emphasis supplied) This case, I suggest, is peculiar and resulted from the fact that the Court found that since 1957 there had been an increased use of water in the area as a result of the Colorado Big Thompson Project. The rule as set out in Ambrosio vs. Perl Mack Const. Co. should again be applied to a similar situatIOn. In this specific project it seems that if you design for a 100 year flood and this is the acceptable design standard in the field, the District has acted reasonably and prudently. Inasmuch as the roadway would be over run by a 100 year flood if no project were accomplished, I fail to see the District's liability for damage to the roadway or adjacent property if the project is completed on the basis of competent engineering studies. This is not to say that an aggrieved property owner would not sue, but the law certainly seems to preclude recovery under the circumstances discussed herein. If I can be of further service in expanding on this opinion, please call on me. PFR:s Your~ t~.1 'R'o / ,/ 'I If P~lip ~r ~