to the engineering issues that were taking place the flooding issues that were taking place there was some discussion from mr powers counsel regarding why that's her testimony with regard to the conversion that took place on mr flowers property whether that would increase the runoff from that property we would posit that if you look at case law in this area that we cited briefs on as well as just common sense you can see that that sort of activities the in its natural state that will naturally absorb surface water created the situation where water when necessary but often as i mention the use of the property will simply exacerbate the problem taking which should live in the ball park for at least nine years all of them testified consistently that sense two thousand and six and two thousand and seven when this construction took place the flooding drastically as all of them acknowledge that there was works just down the street from the properties that we're discussing mr farron for fifteen years has driven back and forth on a daily basis he has an intimate knowledge of that road that divides the properties and the flooding that takes place on both direct and cross examination he testified consistently and emphatically that the water is much heavier since the conversion the property personally witnessed the construction cross the street he has seen with his own eyes the water flowing heavily off of this are flowers property flowing in the mobile home park causing damage and no point if you waver with respect to the amount of water and what was causing the water to flow through the mobile home park in the state that the consistently though that the flooding did exist before and but it was minor and not a nuisance it is really a reasonable level of a complete nuisance since very cross the street took place though ever the record correct the water runoff so he could have  based on all of the evidence the record we feel that it is overwhelming and there is no way you can have any other determination than find in favor of these in this case the limited evidence in favor of  explain the change in position you got i personally was not involved at that point and i i would say that i'm going to wear any formal method to ask the court that it was i know that we received notice of the decision know letter that was copied to our office and at that point the decision was rendered and there was no explanation questions we look at the evidence as well we begin to ask questions about rainfall for one yesterday you didn't mention you know is a thirty percent increase in rainfall over a period of three years at al i would say that it's not dealing with surface water rainfall is the necessary agent to create flooding right we have no three per river anything of that nature in the area so that heavy rainfall is necessary if you look at the the connection is what's necessary the connection between the flooding and the alteration correct correct and i what about the alteration of the other fo the videos and photos and their six extensive testimony in the record demonstrate so the testimony of the witness in the video which stated that the water was flowing off of county materials materials and they raised the issue that mr flowers was not disclose his point of view speaking about that and then the courts said ok and mr flowers cannot specifically on page forty three of seven the court says this is different than what we were talking about the previous week when they brought up this objection and when mr weekley who is it is the person that owns f and g s business that strictly south of the sho talking about the construction of county cereals and how it affected the water flow and you have numerous references some of them brought up by mr shoal to use council during cross examination of how county materials property and what they did to their property because the majority of or a good portion of the water and i would suggest your honor that you look at their videos and their pictures that they produce and we blew up probably because we need to see big picture smaller ones but look at our defense exhibits fifteen sixteen eighteen there's clearly more patient the waters coming off the county material there videos show the gushing water comes off the county material and what what they don't fifty acre drainage and our client owns four and a half acres of fed drainage and one of the things that justice are choosing to judge kavanaugh specifically brought up in justice turner you brought this up he specifically as we note in our brief on page thirty two said where is the evidence from and expert this says whatever mr flowers did here caused an the the county has a big facility up here and they have a twenty one huge drain the drains all their water down to mr shelton in this for weekly testified that once that thing was installed there was a big increase of wat additionally right were flowers property is he bought nine acres he sold four and a half on the east side so to county materials he did not contrary to what they said in their reply argument he did not do much work on any materials at all he clearly little bit any took very small if you look at mr devotes his testimony a very small number of loads of dirt off of there but focus their water into a natural vein drainage ditch which stalls sitings road that flows down to the lowest point now in the justice connect you brought up the issue of rainfall well the two experts justin and furrowing both define for the court what a ten year event is a ten year event is an unusual ring for all that's going to occur and this so and their witnesses acknowledged that in two thousand and eleven there was a train and it stopped it wasn't flooded each of these four people that came from the trailer park or from the mobile home park all acknowledged they never went back and saw anything that county materials don't they didn't even know about the construction on the fourth a half acres by county materials and if you look  pictures it's obvious the differences between what's happened in one versus the other mr flowers took a lot of effort to make sure they didn't increase water flow and they d took action to restrict water flow and what it is you get the same elevation same slope efe slanted it the same way it was before the video taken and they said he took office primarily trees or were in fences and a little bit of scrub brush he took off junk cars he took off piles of asphalt he took up roadways of asphalt and he made it so that he could have it as a s jesson as he specifically testified designed this system to only deal with the four and a half acres he specifically said it's not going to touch this fifty eight abroad and additionally he stuck the township it backs into lindsay electric effect and into the county and you might well imagine that my client doesn't want to stop water forced back on the somebody else's property without somebody signing off on it right because i guarantee you if he flooded out all those places some is going to say were written for but that's a smokescreen yes and said this doesn't work and wish to restrict the water pushed it back up till we also have the fact that this place what it exploded before mr flowers ever showed up if you believe mr whately there's less water coming off the flowers property now and what was there before did and flowers property it makes a ninety degree turn into shelties frog it goes from twenty one ninety degree turn eighteen inch obviously twenty one inch eighteen inch is going to cause a backup and in addition when this was all the way down during these three years our engineer ran a camera through and found that part of the reason it was flooding was there was a big chunk of concrete shelties pipe which was removing this or packed it is important that as you look at this record that both mr sheltie mr taft and who did the videos and did the pictures both acknowledged there was substantial water rushing off of conning materials into that ditch flooding their property everybody said that the problem is if they don't acknowledge that they have to prove causation and we've got these five factors go we've got tile we've got the railroad move all we've got fifty acres straight into a pond we and we came back and we we ask you to reconsider the facts and basically we said there's no causation here and we argued that and he specifically then started looking at these five factors including there's no there's no evidence from an expert that says this problem doesn't really take an expert when you have people that live there saying it's now  property now it gets needy non equal where you have to balance with the people that are talking to people that are talking didn't realize that there were nine acres being fixed the same the people that are talking didn't have the they said it was heavy rains and everybody acknowledges during those three year period there were excessive mines and a cause flooding in the area and so what they said is ok if there's heavy rains we saw the front of the property being improved we don't know what's going on behind it and then when you take that plus the video evidence and their picture of evidence you balance it all together and you have to say ok you're good people you understand suddenly it's just it's higher but you had you have to coordinate all these things and say flowers work that he did on his property was a causation when there is a order that says which this one says that the court being fully advised in the premises when it makes that statement like this order says the court on such a ruling that it should be affirmed and we've given you the case to summon and that's what we're asking you to do which is what this is a case where unfortunately a person bought and owns property at the bottom of a hole and unfortunately we had a huge planes and there was construction in the area and the majority of the evidence as to the flooding doesn't come from my client that runs into this channel that both the you know mobile home park this county materials so mr flowers isn't liable down the material he didn't truckloads of dirt and as he said left it is yours so this is land that once you clear off all the clear of the junk cars with primarily in the first half and the rows of that but the back that  sole witness concert of witnesses that claim the flooding is significantly higher now to say that actually the flooding is higher but somehow the water is less coming off this flowers property not only is that unbelievable where where where it lead into the ditch where it overflowed and were flooded the very area that we're talking about now that sounds to me like there was evidence regarding county material well your honor i would suggest and you did in fact say that there was we're not disputing that kind of materials releases water there's no tissue this is of zero point zero as there's no tissue the funding has always occurred what is in the record if the flooding never occurred to the extent that it written factual findings there are very detailed in the initial order that are all in favor fine but now absent any explanation whatsoever we have