IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14

- 0638 Filed May 20, 2015

WARREN CHRISTY and ALICE CHRISTY , Plaintiff s - Appell ants ,
vs. HARRISON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Acting as THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SIEG DRAINAGE DISTRICT , Defendant

- Appell ee

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Jeffrey L. Larso n , Judge.

Landowners appeal from the district court ruling upholding the authority of a county board of supervisors to replace drainage district tubes. AFFIRMED.

Douglas L. Struyk of Carney & Appleby, P.L.C., Des Moines , for appellant s

. Sasha L. Monthei of Schel drup Blades , Cedar Rapi ds , for appellee.

Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN, J. This appeal raises a challenge to the authority of a county board of supervisors to replace tubes in a drainage district

. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Several dra inage districts within Harrison County, Iowa , were served by a tube system located outside the boundaries of the S ie g Drainage District. Warren and Alice Christy lived within the S ie g D rainage D istrict. Historically, t he Harrison County Board of Supervisors, as trustee of the S ie g D rainage D istrict, addressed maintenance issues associated with the tube system. See Iowa Code §§ 468.3(2) , .126(1) (2011)

. When the tube system collapsed , an engineer recommend ed replacing the twin tubes in the failed system with a single tube. See id. § 468.126(1)(b) ( “The board may at any time obtain an engineer’s report regarding the most feasible means of repairing a drainage or levee improvement and the probable cost of makin g the repair.” )

. T he B oard scheduled a hearing

. See id. § 468.126(1)(c) (requiring hearing if the size of the repair exceeds twenty thousand dollars ). 1 At the hearing, t he Christy s objected to having the Sieg drainage district assume the entire cost of the repair. After considering the objection and public comments, the Board unanimously adopted the engineer’s recommendation

. The Christys appealed. S ee generally id. §§ 468.83, .84, .86. The district
court denied their request to void the B oard’s action , and t his appeal followed. On appeal, our review is de novo. See id. § 468.91.

1 After 2011, this amount was changed to fifty thousand dollars. See Iowa Code § 468.126(1)(c) (2015).3

II. Analysis
A. Authority and Jurisdiction of Board The Christys contend the B oard “lacked the authority and jurisdiction to approve and pay for the replacement of the drainage tube.” To the contra ry, the legislature vested the B oard with authority to “ order done whatever is necessary to restore or maintain a drainage or levee improvement in its original efficiency or capacity , ” including the “repair [of] any damaged structures ” and “ whatever else may be needed to restore or maintain such efficiency or capacity or to prolong its useful life. ” See Iowa Code § 468. 126(1)(a) ; s ee also Bd

. of Tr s

. of Farmers Drainage Dist. v. Iowa Natural Res. Council , 78 N.W.2d 798, 803 (Iowa 1956) (stating analogous provision in prior statute was “a comprehensive provision imposing the mandatory duty on trustees of a drainage district to keep its drains in repair and authorizing trustees to ‘order done whatever is necessary to restor e or maintain’ the ‘improvement in its original efficiency or capacity’”) ; Johnson v. Monona

- Harrison Drainage Dist. , 68 N.W.2d 517, 525 (Iowa 1955) (same)

. The
B oard ’ s authority extends to repairs outside the district. See Iowa Code § 468

. 126(6) (stating a drainage district b oard “may, by contract or conveyance, acquire, within or without the district, the necessary lands or easements for making repairs or improvements under this section” ( emphasis added ) ) ; see also Polk Cnty

. Drainage Dist. Four v. Iowa Natural Res. Council , 377 N.W.2d 236, 241 (Iowa 1985) ( “ T he trustees have authority to decide whether to initiate proceedings for a project, including repair of an outlet outside the district. ” (emphasis added) ); Nelson v. Graham , 197 N.W. 905 , 906

- 07 (Iowa 1924) (hold ing prior statute “ specifically conferred ” authority to act “ upon the board to4

extend the outlet beyond the boun daries of the d rainage district” and stating “[t] he language conferring such authority is clear, certain, and unambiguous ” ). Section 468. 126(1)(a) is dispositive.
B. Excessive Assessment The Christy s also argue the assessment was excessive “for failure to include other districts.” Their argument is premised on Iowa Code section
468.132 , which relat es to common outlets and the obligation to provide notice to other drainage districts when it becomes “necessary to clean out, deepen, enlarge, extend, or straighten said ditch, drain, or natural watercourse in order to expeditiously carry off the combined waters of such districts.” See Iowa Code § 468.132. 2 T he Christys lack standing to challenge the a bsence of notice to other districts or to require payment from the other districts . T hat prerogative rests with the B oard

. See Bd

. of Sup’ rs of Harrison C nty

. v. Bd

. of Sup ’rs of Crawford Cnty

. , 12 N.W.2d 259 , 263

- 6 4 (Iowa 1943) (“ The obligation of the
b enefited upper district is to pay its proportionate share of all of warrant indebtedness, as determined by the benefit it receives. But this obligation does

2 Iowa Code section 468.132 states : When two or more drainage districts outlet into the same ditch, drain, or natural watercourse and the board determines that it is necessary to clean out, deepen, enlarge, extend, or straighten said ditch, drain, or natural watercourse in order to expeditio usly carry off the combined waters of such districts, the board may proceed as provided in section 468.126. After said board has decided that such work should be done, it shall fix a date for hearing on its decision, and it shall give two weeks’ notice th ereof by certified mail to the auditor of the county wherein the land to be assessed for such work is located, and said county auditor shall thereupon immediately notify by certified mail the board or boards of trustees of the districts having supervision thereof, as to said hearing on said contemplated work. In those instances where two or more districts involved are under the supervision of the same board, or joint board if the district is intercounty, the notice shall be given to all landowners affected as prescribed for in sections 468.14 through 468.18.5

not arise until its share has been determined and apportioned by the commission and passed upon by the board of supervisors of the county in which the lower or repairing district is located. ”). The Christys cite no authority which would allow them to stand in the Board’s shoes for purposes of seeking contribution and requiring service of notice on oth er districts. We recognize section 468.126 also contains certain notice requirements analogous to those in section 468.132 . However, those requirements only apply whe n the b oard authorize s an improvement rather than a repair to a drainage district. Compare Iowa Code § 468.126(4)(a) with id. § 468.132

. 3 T he Christys
conced e the tube

- replacement constituted a repair rather than an improvement. Accordingly, the augmented notice provisions of section 468.126(4)(a) did not apply. Additionally, th ose req uirements arise only when the board ma k e s a decision to reclassify benefits for the cost of improvements. T he B oard took no formal action to reclassify benefits. See Hicks v. Franklin Cnty. Auditor , 514 N.W.2d 431, 433 (Iowa 1994). While the Board wrote to another district and requested reimbursement for fifty percent of the tube

- replacement cost, it did not initiate an action against the other district when the district failed to respond. See Bd. of Trs. of Monona

- Harrison Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Bd. o f Sup’rs of Monona Cnty. , 291 N.W. 141, 142 (Iowa 1940) (describing action by one district to compel other districts to levy assessments). Accordingly, the notice provisions of section 468.126(4)(a) were inapplicable.

3 For most purposes, s ection 468.126 removes the common

- law distinction between repairs and improvements. See Johnson , 68 N.W.2d at 526 (stating predecessor to section 468.126 “now largely eliminates the distinction between improvements desirable and repairs necessary.”)

.6 Even if the Christys had standing to raise the absence of notice to other entities or persons, their reliance on section 468.132 is unavailing for another

reason. By its terms, section 468.132 permits the Board “to proceed as provided in section 468.126.” Accordingly, we co me full circle to section 468.126, which authorizes board action in precisely this type of situation. See Iowa Code § 468.126(1)( a ).
III. Disposition We conclude Iowa Code section 468.1 26 vested the B oard with authority and jurisdiction to approve and pa y for replacement of the drainage tube. We further conclude the Board’s failure to notify other districts of the action did not
render the assessment excessive. Based on th ese conclusion s , we find it unnecessary to address the Christys’ remaining argumen ts. AFFIRMED.