FLOOD08154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A-5 Wright-McLaughlin Engineers Page 5 October 27, 1972 In addition to the foregoing discussion, which deals with the alteration of the channel of a natural stream, liability may also be created by the construction of a bridge or highway crossing over a natural water course and failing to provide sufficient capacity for passage of for- seeable runoff. Baker Vs. Ft,,, Worth, 146 Tex 600, 210 SW (2d) 564. --- The Urban Drainage District is subject to suit for damage caused by negligent act:s or omissions of the dis- trict. Section 89-21-21 (5), eRS 1963. The liability is not absolute, however, and the person seeking t,o recover must prove that his damages were the p:r:oximate result of the district's negligent act or omission. Pure sprin~ Water Supply Company vs. Olne,c~rin9:~.!. 87 Colo 420, 288 Pac 631. There is some support in the Colorado cases for the doctrine that a municipality ,"7hich fixes the channel of a stream is not liable for the effe'cts of an unprecedented storm, which could not reasona.bly have been anticipated. Denver VB. Merchants Biscuit Comp~, 61 Colo 238, 157 Pac 842. This is the so-called "act 6r~God" doctrine. It is our opinion, however, that this defense should be relied upon only as a last resort, and that the steadily increas- ing engin,;ering expertise available to those planning pro- jects of this type makes reliance on this defense unaccept- able. It is our recommendation that the distri.ct regard itself as having a strict li.ability to lower landowners for an injury caused by its negiligence in planning, constructing or operating a drainage system. In addition, once a natural water course has been incorporated into the district's works, the channel must be maintained free of obstructions, and fail- ure to do so can result in lia,biLLty. City of Denver vs. Rhodes, 9 Cola 554, 13 Pac 729; Malvernia vs. 'I'rrn'idad, 123 Colo 394, 229 P2d 945. - ,.--- Although it is our understanding I:hat the pro:iect, once