Birdwell v. Moore
| Decision Date | 15 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-1081A164,4-1081A164 |
| Citation | 439 N.E.2d 718 |
| Parties | Marie Duncan BIRDWELL, John Duncan, Appellants-Defendants, v. Charles W. MOORE, Grace Lorene Moore, Appellees-Plaintiffs, Madison County, State of Indiana, Delaware County, State of Indiana, Appellees (Third Party Defendants Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Kelley, Howard & Walker, Vincent Kelley, Anderson, for appellants-defendants.
Richard E. Kreegar, Chesterfield, for appellees-plaintiffs.
After trial in Madison Circuit Court, Special Judge Alva Cox presiding, Marie Duncan Birdwell and John Duncan, appellants, were permanently enjoined from obstructing the flow of water coming from the farm of Charles W. and Grace L. Moore, appellees. A motion to correct errors was timely filed and overruled. Birdwell and Duncan appeal and present the following issues 1 for review:
1. Was the evidence sufficient to show a watercourse existed?
2. Did the evidence show the volume of flowage had been increased by artificial means?
3. Was the evidence insufficient to show the natural flow of water is onto the Birdwell and Duncan farm?
Affirmed.
Natural accumulations of surface water on the farm of Charles & Grace Moore drained into a channel in the middle of their farm. This channel drained to the northwest and emptied onto the farm of Marie Birdwell and John Duncan by way of a culvert under the road separating the two farms. The evidence showed water had flowed in that direction, by way of the waterway for over fifty years. The culvert was installed in 1924 by Birdwell and Duncan's father to deal with flooding problems occasioned by water emptying onto his property from the property now owned by the Moores.
Of the 95 acres on the Moore farm only 35 acres drain to the north. The remaining 60 acres drain to the southwest into Heagy Creek. Land surveys offered at trial showed an area of highest elevation around the perimeter of the 35 acre area and lower elevation at the north end of the grass waterway where water entered the culvert. A survey map admitted at trial identifies the drainage area with the captions waterway and grass waterway.
In 1973 Moore began to clear trees and debris from the waterway and repair erosion damage. Although Moore used several loads of dirt to repair soil erosion, testimony indicated no change in the natural slope of the terrain. Moore also cleared brush from the northern part of the waterway and replanted the area in grass to limit soil erosion.
In 1975 Duncan erected a three foot earthen dam in an attempt to dam out water draining onto his farm from the Moore farm. This dam proved ineffective against water coming from the Moore farm, so Duncan extended the dam and later constructed two other earthen dams in 1976 and 1977. As a result, water backed up onto the Moore farm and flooded five acres of wheat.
When we review a decision for sufficiency of evidence we neither re-weigh the evidence nor re-assess the credibility of witnesses. We look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences arising therefrom which support the conclusion of the trial court. We will reverse only when the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court has rendered a contrary judgment. Davidson v. Mathis, (1979) Ind.App., 389 N.E.2d 364, 366.
Birdwell and Duncan initially argue there was no showing that water flowing onto their land from the Moore farm ran in the bed of a natural watercourse. This argument implicates two ancient rules regarding flowing waters.
Surface water is water which diffuses itself over the natural slope of the ground, not following a defined course or channel. Taylor v. Fickas, (1878) 64 Ind. 167. Otherwise stated, surface water is:
[w]ater from falling rains or melting snows which is diffused over the surface as the natural elevations and depressions of the land may guide it but which has no definite banks or channels, .... If the natural depressions and elevations of the land form a way for water but such way has no well defined banks or channel and carries no water except that which drains into it from adjoining lands in wet seasons or as the result of freshets, then such way is not a natural water course but a mere surface drain and falls within the doctrine that surface water is a common enemy which any proprietor may combat as best he can.
Capes v. Barger, (1953) 123 Ind.App. 212, 214-215, 109 N.E.2d 725, 726. Surface water is regarded as the common enemy of both upper and lower tenants and the lower tenant may protect himself from the flow of surface water as best he can, including damming the water out. Thompson v. Dyar, (1955) 126 Ind.App. 70, 130 N.E.2d 52.
However, water flowing in a channel or watercourse is not surface water and the common enemy rule is not applicable. The law pertaining to watercourses prohibits lower proprietors from blocking the flow of water through a watercourse. Argyelan v. Haviland, (1982) Ind., 435 N.E.2d 973. A natural watercourse is a channel through which water flows and has flowed, not necessarily all the time, but ordinarily and permanently for a substantial period each year. Walley v. Wiley, (1914) 56 Ind.App. 171, 104 N.E. 318. The size of a watercourse is immaterial as is the necessity of constant flowing water. Gwinn v. Myers, (1955) 234 Ind. 560, 129 N.E.2d 225.
It is often said that a watercourse must have a defined bed and banks. Lowe v. Loge Realty Co., (1966) 138 Ind.App. 434, 214 N.E.2d 400. These criteria are not conclusive, however. Whether a watercourse exists must be determined from the applicable facts.
A channel and banks and bed are ordinarily classed as the surface indications of a natural water course. They are, however, but the indicia of a water course. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Kovich
...as such are substantial existence and unity, regularity, and dependability of flow along a definite course." Birdwell v. Moore, 439 N.E.2d 718, 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (citing Vandalia R. Co. v. Yeager, 110 N.E. 230, 234 (1915)). Whether a watercourse exists is a question of fact. See Trow......
-
Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Kovich
...as such are substantial existence and unity, regularity, and dependability of flow along a definite course.” Birdwell v. Moore, 439 N.E.2d 718, 721 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (citing Vandalia R. Co. v. Yeager, 60 Ind.App. 118, 110 N.E. 230, 234 (1915)). Whether a watercourse exists is a question of ......
-
Heller v. Fire Ins. Exchange, a Div. of Farmers Ins. Group
...Waterworks Co. v. Cline, 37 Fla. 586, 593-4, 20 So. 780, 782 (1896); Walker, 98 Ga.App. at 459-60, 105 S.E.2d at 920; Birdwell v. Moore, 439 N.E.2d 718, 721 (Ind.App.1982); Hunt, 238 Iowa at 553-55, 28 N.W.2d at 218; Robinson v. Belanger, 332 Mich. 657, 661-63, 52 N.W.2d 538, 541 (1952); Sc......
-
Kramer v. Rager
...flows upon the ground along the natural contours of the surface of the land following no defined course or channel. Birdwell v. Moore, (1982) Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 718; Capes v. Barger, (1953) 123 Ind.App. 212, 109 N.E.2d 725; 29 I.L.E. Waters Sec. 51 (1960); 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters Sec. 117 (19......
-
Artificial Waterways in International Water Law: An American Perspective.
...Ct. 1960): Lowe v. Loge Realty Co., 138 Ind. App. 434. 436 (1966); Ullian v. Cullen. 3 Mass. App. Ct. 159, 162 (1975); Birdwell v. Moore, 439 N.E.2d 718, 721 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Watts, 140 S.W.3d at 870, n.6; Smith-Dugan, Inc. v. Dugan, 2012 WI, 1349470. *5 (Neb. App. Ct. 2012); Holton v.......