Norwich bulletin., 1917-10-25
THE STATE HIGHWAY
 DEPARTMENTS DUTY
Opinion Given to Commissioner Ben
 nett by Attorney General.

Attorney General George E. Hin man gave an opinion recently to State Highway Commissioner Charles J. Bennett with regard to the duty of the highway department in the kind cf ditches and culverts that shall be provided by the department. His opinion is that the state is required to maintain only such ditches and the surface and percolating waters upon or under the highways, without reference to the drainage of adjoining lands.
 MT Bennett's request was for an opinion as to whether these ditches and culverts must be of sufficient ca pacity to carry. not only the road drainage, but drainage from land on either side. MT. Hinman's under standing of the section of the high way which was under discussion was that it is situated on low land, cov- cred as to both the highway and ad- joining premises by overflow from a stream in time of freshet, that the adjoining land is wet and swampy, that the existing ditches and culverts sufficiently drain the highway, but that the property owners here want to have their property relieved from surface and percolating water. The attorney generals opinion follows: r You ask my opinion as to the duty of your department to provide ditches and culverts, upon state highways, of
 
 the road drainage. but drainage from land on either side. 'T understand that the section of highway to which your inquiry spe- cially relates is situated on low land, covered as to both the highway and adjoining premises by overflow from a stream in time of freshet, that said adjoining land is wet and swampy, that the existing highway ditches and culverts sufficiently drain the high nf ;.;, property desire that said ditches and culverts be enlarged so as to relieve their property. in some degree, from surface and percolating waters.
 "It may be remarked, in passing, that under our decisions the tempor- ary flooding of the road in time of freshet does not constitute a want of repair, nor is the raising of the level of the road to avoid such flooding a repair of the existing roadbed. Good speeds Appeal 75 Conn.,, 271, 274.
 "As to surface water. the state in constructing or maintaining a high way is under no duty and subject to no liability to on adjoining proprietor as to any obstruction of the flow of mere surface water caused by the ex- istence of the grade of such high way, whatever may be the limitations Cpon its right to collect surface water from adjoining lands into an artifi- cial channel and discharge it upon lana or an ad)oln1nS proprietor.
 ''Byrne vs. Town of Pennington, GA Conn.,, 367-376.
 "salzman. New Haven, s1 Conn., sss. 1892.
 Even if. as I do not understand to be the case in the present instance, tine extension of the highway caused some obstruction or diversion of per- co1atlng waters, no actionable injury results from such obstruction or di- version, hence no duty to obviate the same.
 40 Cyc. D. 629.
 "In my opinion you are requested to maintain only such ditches and culverts in connection with said high way as will adequately care for the surface and percolating waters upon or under the same without reference to drainage of adjoining lands"