FLOOD04566 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 35 I I I I I I I I I damage.) Baker v. Akron, 145 Iowa 485, 122 N. W. 926 (1909). (The town was found liable for discharging more water than naturally flowed onto plaintiffls land located outside the town.) This is not to say, however, that in terms of planning for the future this Creek Channel should not be improved and preserved as a natural watercourse. Quite to the contrary. But in so doing, extreme Care should be ob- served and a full and complete ~ developed before starting any channelization or construction. This in- cludes a careful analysis of future flow in order that a proper outlet be obtained now or at least be easily obtained in the future. 38 Am. Jur., Sec 634, Municipal Corporations, p. 3~. ... Flood plain zoning in coordination with the County is certainly less controversial now than later. The channel lends itself more readily to improvement now than later. Since the natural channel and the natural flow is being maintained, the City and County should be able to make any reasonable improvements without threat of liabil ity for neg 1 i gence. I I I I I I The engineer has done an excellent job of determining the facts. The I'proposed improvements" for these three creeks seem wel I-planned and carefully thought out. Once the improvements referred to have been started (and the Creeks as governmental drainageways adopted), the responsibility for maintaining the channels remains. Sur- veillance of these channels must be maintained to properly supervise any additional drainage areas that private parties might direct into the channeis. The channels must be kept free from obstructions. Malvernia v. Trinidad, 123 Colo. 394,229 P. 2d945 (1951). In short, the City does not have to do anything. But once it undertakes these responsibilities, the duty of using reasonable diligence and care to see that the drainage facil ities are prevented from becoming delapidated or obstructed is a continuing one. I I I