The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1917-10-22
AMMAN DEFINES DUTY OF STATE
 HIGHWAY DEPT.
Gives Opinion Regarding the Size of bitches and
 Culverts

Attorney General Hinman has giv-- en an opinion to State Highway Com missioner Bennett with regard to the duty of the highway department in the kind of ,ditches and eculverts that shall be provided by the department. His opinion is that the state Is required to maintain only such ditches and cu1verts as will adequitely cane for 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 capacity to carry, not only the road drainage, but drainage from land on either side MT. Hinman's- under standing of the section of highway which was under discussion was that 1t is situated on low land, covered as to both the highway and adjoining premises by overflow from a stream in time of freshet, that the adjoining land is wet and swampy, that the ex- isting ditches and culverts sufficiently fdrain the highway but that the prop l erty owners here want to have their property relieved from surface and / generals opinion fo1lows:-
 | You ask my opinion as to the duty | of your department to provide ditches and culverts upon state high ways, of sufficient capacity to carry not only the road drainage. but drain age from land on either side. | T understand that the section ot highway toe which your inquiry spe- cially relates is situated on lowland, covered as to both the highway and and adjoining premises by overflow from stream in time of freshet that said adjoining land is wet and l swampy, that the existing highway ditches and cu1verts sufficiently drain the highway, but that owners of ad. joining property desire that said ditches and culverts be enlarged SC as to relieve their property, in some degree, from surface and percolatins waters.
 ''It may be remarked, in passing that under our decisions the temper. ary flooding of the road in time o1 freshet does not constitute a want o1 repair, nor is the raising of the leve 1 of the road to avoid such flooding g repair of the existing roadbed. Good lspeed's Appeal. 75 Conn.s 271. 274.
 "As to surface water, the state il constructing or maintaining a high
 way is under no duty and subject tt
 no liability to an adjoining proprie
 tor as to any obstruction of the flov
 of mere surface water caused by tn,
 existence of the grade of such high
 way. whatever may be the limitation upon its right to collect surface wate
 from adjoining lands into. an artifi Icial channel and discharge 1t upol land of an adjoining proprietor.
 'Byrne vs. Town of Pennington, 6
 Conn, Ss7-376.
 ''Salzman vs. New Haven. 81 Com
 > sss. ss2.
 I .Hven if. as do not understan, to be the case in the present in
 stance. the extension of the highwa,
 caused some obstruction or diversio of perco1ating waters, no actionabl
 injury resules from such obstructfo
 or diversion. hence no duty to obvi : ate the same.
 i, GAO Cyo.. D. 62s. 'sIn my opinion you are requeste to maintain only such ditches an cuiverts in connection with said high way as will adequately care for tn
 surface and percoIating waters upo l or under the same, without referenc to drainage of adjoining lands''