FLOOD08154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A- i 1 Wright-McLaughlin Engineers Page 11 Oct:ober 27, 1972 to landowners and residents of the ar'2a b<Cllow the condui t could be extremely large. In connection with this alternative the district should also consider that the likelihood of :~,lug9ing problems is greatly increased in closed channels. The fact that the run- off in this alternative would be through a conduit would in no way diminish the responsibilit:y of the district to make certain -that the channel is maint:ained in an open and obstruc- tion-free condition. ALTERNATIVE NO.5: If Alternative No. 5 were adopted, the district would construct ponds at appropriate points along the water course for the purpose of diminishing peak flows. The study does not attempt to det:ermi:~e where these ponds should be placed and we are, therefore, not able -to comment at length on legal problems which might be created by any of the individual ponds. In general, the district's liability in connection with the design, construction and maintenance of ponds would be the same as its liability for the cow3truction of any other structure. This, of course, is t:he duty ,to see that water is not discharged upon any downst:ream resident, or landowner in such a way as to do more harm than would have been done had the structure not been built. No entity, including a drainage district, ha::, the right delibera1:ely to flood the lands of another without his con- sent. Dixon vs. Baker, 65 III 518. It is clear t:hat -the construc1:ion of ponds would require either the purchase of the land to be inundated by the ponds, or the acquisition of easements for that purpose. ALTERNATIVE NO.6: Like Alt:erna':ive No.4, this alterna- tive proposes an underground conduit i:O carryall or part of flood wa1:ers accumulating in the drainage basin. In our opinion 1:he problems with this alternativ,~ are similar to