one of the plaintiffs felons owns property to the west to east that is a property own by mr bliss and that natural topography the natural course of ra of having the water come from the swaggered property on his property and that having to construct a permit was effective to keep the water from coming onto his property the to another the dominant owner from from whose property is naturally flows has the right to send it over and on to servia property and servia property owner husbandry in other words if he's making reasonable use of his property and that happens to change the drainage then the serviette owner asked to accept it in our case what church make that same analysis from the owner of the serbian parcels perspective from the list is perspective judge webber determined that in so many words the harm that was caused to the list of property by the water flowing from the swagger property much was much greater or far exceeded any harm or damage that was caused to this wider property which just farms a small piece of farm property just the of water on the swagger property and under the circumstances i think in his words balance the hardships or balance the equities or something to that effect and our point is that p desson is the name of the plaintiff in the first one the other one is my louer the court in each of those cases tested by the ways of this fourth district case said  rule when you're analyzing the conduct of the dominant owner when he changes the flow of the water but there is no precedent to make that analysis or that assessment from the perspective of a serbian owner in other words to say it it's hard not to be sympathetic when you're the tragedy you have two parties and you feel worse for one than you do the other he didn't feel like swaggart was really damage very much he felt like list he was  it has been suggested in the listees brief that the church will ever made some factual determination as to the direction of flow of the water which we about the flow of water from swaggart to de list view or not certainly the facts are that over the years there have been many attempts by the parties to stop for the years they have built burnt similar items similar things at least to in their their objective has been to channel the water to a fish in between a couple of those lock also the testimony of a civil engineer testified on behalf those efforts to obstruct financial flow doesn't make what mr gillespie did lawful those efforts by the other folks were just as unlawful in terms of not criminal but contrary to the civil law rule the dominant person or was doing or not doing either was or was not reasonable which is just the opposite of our case we know there's an exception to the civil law rule if you're the dominant owner and you are making reasonable use of your property which changes the flow or increases the point is there is no authority to make that assessment or that analysis in the context of what the s ok thank you thank you is this is the walshes backyard on the right hand side of the little one to the left the back yard which is this if any left do they have the right words of grass and what they did many years stated in his opinion it's lots of people tried different things over time but what what the players are trying to impose here not is not natural bridge they haven't addressed the waltzes problem with all that's where the national or suppose they want the water to run through property because they're on the other side of the fish they're not affected by what happens here their water that comes through their yard comes from east to west yes but it comes from somewhere north of that and it comes to their yard and we suggest why they notice it now is comparison what's the damage to the swipe of farm and they stipulated has no damage and has been stricken he said maybe maybe that's not exactly the test as to what's reparable harm but it's awfully close to it and certainly persuasive evidence to dominant owners of all that helped a lot and what has happened here is the parties years ago they've done this yet which didn't exist before to make a place for the water to go between their houses so it wouldn't go like right up to and through property back on into their property and it is they are kind of related because the new dish replaces the own water way through the wall she's back yard the her behind the testimony that water stood on the spider farm for more than a couple three hours with no testimony that they had any water standing on their farm along a coast you dam and they stipulated they didn't have  notice expanse to permit normal user development of the servian estate but only if the changes do not significantly less and utility easement increase the burdens of the owner of the easement or frustrate the purpose for which is pretty spot of water you know when it's heads we win tails we lose by this argument if we say we don't have money damages that means we're not harmed that's that's the whole concept of your reprimand harm you can't fix it with photographs which i did not make copies of for my brief there in the record there were photographs of mr swagger took they were taken from the east looking west in the background of the picture is the farm in the foreground  his making that comment is that there was shade drainage off the striker property drainage cheat sheet i think that's the pickle term it rains and then flows something in a sheet of water so the court didn't find that there was a change in the natural flow he just found that people in that percentage of people in that subdivision were trying to obstruct the water diverted stand on the swiper property we will say again in so many words that we think the distinction between being down in it and serving it in terms of whether you're allowed this