Case Title: Viestenz v. Arthur Township

Citation: 129 N.W.2d 33

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1964-05-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
129 N.W.2d 33 (1964) Charles VIESTENZ and Ingrid Viestenz, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ARTHUR TOWNSHIP, a Municipal Corporation of CASS COUNTY, North Dakota; Edward Schur, Erwin Schur and Vernon Smith as Township Supervisors of Arthur Township, Cass County, North Dakota, and Edward Schur, Clark Lincoln and Vernon Smith, individually, Defendants and Respondents. No. 8117. Supreme Court of North Dakota. May 28, 1964. Rehearing Denied July 1, 1964. Wattam, Vogel, Vogel, Bright & Peterson, Fargo, for plaintiffs and appellants. Lashkowitz & Lashkowitz, Fargo, for defendants and respondents. ERICKSTAD, Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Cass County dated April 12, 1963, which denied an application on the part of Charles and Ingrid Viestenz for an order requiring the defendants to comply with the mandatory injunction heretofore entered in this case. *34 In 1950 the present petitioners as plaintiffs brought an action against the township and its supervisors, alleging that the township had reconstructed certain public highways bordering the plaintiffs' property in such a manner that the highways obstructed the natural flow and drainage of surface water, causing flooding of the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs asked that the township be permanently enjoined from obstructing the natural and free flowage of surface water over, upon, and across their land and that it be further enjoined from permitting surface water flowing into and accumulating in the ditches of the said public highways to overflow the plaintiffs' adjacent land. The district court refused to grant the permanent injunction, vacated the temporary injunction which it had granted, and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. On appeal the majority of this court concluded its opinion as follows: Pursuant to this opinion judgment on remittitur was entered by the Clerk of District Court of Cass County on August 27, 1952. The pertinent paragraphs read as follows: The injunction which it is sought to enforce was indefinite in its provisions, in that it was left to the township board to make provision that plaintiffs' land should not be flooded by the obstruction of the natural flow of surface waters through the adoption of good engineering practices. It is contended that the means adopted by the board in an attempt to comply with the injunction have not been effective and do not constitute good engineering practices, and that the only effective way of preventing plaintiffs' land from being flooded by the obstruction of the natural flow of surface waters and thus comply with the injunction is to reestablish the natural flow of such waters. An order directing defendants to take such action is therefore requested. Such a proceeding is appropriate, as the court has continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing and making the permanent injunction effective. Halsrud v. Brodale, 247 Iowa 1047, 77 N.W.2d 922. The question thus submitted is a question of fact. To provide the proper factual background we quote from the 1952 opinion of the majority of this court, as follows: Following the entry of the judgment on remittitur the defendant township in September of 1952 employed Max R. Hughes, an engineer, to recommend methods of complying therewith. Mr. Hughes apparently suggested two methods of draining the land. The first method involved cleaning and deepening the drainage ditch paralleling *38 the road from the southeast corner of Section 21 north to the coulee and the coulee bed to the northwest 300 to 500 feet. This plan also required the removal of the driveway in the Southeast Quarter of Section 21 at the point where the east-west ridge intersected the north-south road. The second method required the placing of a culvert across the east-west road between Section 21 and Section 28 west of the point where the north-south road intersected the east-west road at the southeast corner of Section 21 and the deepening of the road ditch channel southward through the next mile. Mr. Hughes recommended the adoption of the first method, and this plan was carried out except for the deepening of the coulee bed. This apparently adequately drained the plaintiffs' land until the heavy rains of 1962, when their land was again flooded. At the hearing in March of 1962 on the application to enforce the court's mandatory injunction of 1952 by ordering the construction of a culvert beneath the east-west road bordering the south end of the plaintiffs' property, the plaintiff Charles Viestenz testified as follows: Lewis Viestenz, brother of the plaintiff Charles Viestenz, testified that in 1962 he also saw the water from north of the ridge drain toward the south in the ditch along the west side of the north-south road east of the plaintiffs' land. Neither plaintiff Charles Viestenz's testimony nor his brother's testimony in this regard was contradicted by any of the defendants' witnesses. Testimony on behalf of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have driven farm machinery across the north-south ditch and that soil has drifted into it, causing the ditch to be partially filled with soil. Frank Richard, an engineer employed by Charles Viestenz to make a survey of the land in question, testified that there was not enough difference in elevation between the flooded area and the coulee for the water in the flooded area to drain north into the coulee. This was contradicted by E. L. Pratt, an engineer who surveyed the area for the defendants. He said that much land in the locality was being drained with less difference in grade, although he admitted that the difference in elevation between the two points was less than the minimum drop necessary to get adequate drainage. He contended that the recommended minimum drop was not available anywhere in the county. His view was that plaintiffs' land could be adequately drained by removing the soil which had accumulated in the ditch in the ten-year period. Although the engineers differed as to what plan would adequately drain the plaintiffs' land, it appears that digging the ditch through the natural ridge which intersects the north-south road approximately eight hundred feet north of the southeast corner of Section 21 has aggravated the drainage problem and caused surface water which would naturally flow to the north to flow to the south in times of excess run-off. The statute which controlled when this matter was first considered reads as follows: The aforesaid statute was repealed and reenacted almost verbatim in 1953. Said law is now contained in Section 24-03-06 of the North Dakota Century Code and reads as follows: Having reviewed the record and the mandatory injunction of the district court granted in 1952 in light of the controlling law, we conclude that the petitioners-plaintiffs herein are entitled to an order enforcing the said mandatory injunction, which would require the defendants forthwith to construct the township highways which border the petitioners-plaintiffs' land on the south and on the east so that the highways do not obstruct the natural flow of surface waters to the south and east. The district court's order of April 22, 1963, is therefore set aside, and the case is remanded with instructions to the district court to issue an order in conformity with this decision. MORRIS, C. J., and STRUTZ, TEIGEN and BURKE, JJ., concur.