FLOOD09315

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: General Principles of Drainage Law Outline
• Date: 1/15/1980
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

-

e

e

1-15-80

plan which did not provide drainage facilities and issued building
permits, borough was not liable because it owed no duty to land-
owners outs~ae its boundaries. However, the developer was held liable.)

One state court, however, has held that a municipality is liable
for damages where the municipality has furnished building permits
to a contractor for development of an industrial complex which
benefited the village financially, but also diminished surface
area available for drainage of water causing flooding of neighboring
servient estates. Myotte v. Village of Mayfield, 375 N.E.2d 816
(1977). In Myotte, the village's liability was based on the follow-
ing reasoning:

liTo require the developer to pick up the
cost of flood prevention by requiring him
to acquire land along stream margins for
widening or deepening to accommodate
accelerated flow, would subject him to
possible overreaching by riparian owners.
The developer has no power of eminent
domain. Municipalities do have powers of
condemnation. Accordingly, as an advan-
taged party with the power to protect
itself from crisis pricing, it seems
reasonable and just that the municipality
should either enlarge the stream to
accommodate water accelerated from per-
mitted improvements which enrich it or pay the
consequences.1I Myotte, supra at 820. (Day,
J. concurring.) See also, Armstrong v.
Francis Corporation, 20 N.J. 320, 120 A.2d
4 (1956); Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles,
3 Cal. App. 3d 720 (1970); Powers, et al.,
v. County of Clark and Clark County Flood
Control District, District Court, State of
Nevada (No. A 125197) (1978).

There is a trend toward imposing a greater burden or responsibility
on municipalities for the drainage consequences of urban development.
See Wood Brothers Homes, Inc. v. City of Colorado Springs, 568 P.2d
487 (1977) ~City abused discretion by not granting variance and by
assessing entire cost of major drainage channel on developer where
area to be served by the major drainage channel already suffered
from occasional flooding and needed expanded drainage facility
whether the property was developed or not).

(7)