Case Name: COULEE KINNEY DRAINAGE DISTRICT v. Pierre W. BROUSSARD
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2007-10-03
Citations: 966 So. 2d 1191
Docket Number: No. 2007-175
Parties: COULEE KINNEY DRAINAGE DISTRICT v. Pierre W. BROUSSARD.
Judges: Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, GLENN B. GREMILLION, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 966
Pages: 1191–1199

Head Matter:
COULEE KINNEY DRAINAGE DISTRICT v. Pierre W. BROUSSARD.
No. 2007-175.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Oct. 3, 2007.
James J. Davidson, III, Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier & McElligott, Lafayette, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellant, Pierre W. Broussard.
Paul G. Moresi, III, Assistant District Attorney, Abbeville, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Coulee Kinney Drainage District.
Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, GLENN B. GREMILLION, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.

Opinion:
GENOVESE, Judge.
hln this suit for declaratory judgment, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, the Coulee Kinney Drainage District (Drainage District), finding that the drainage ditch which traversed the property of the Defendant, Pierre Brous-sard (Mr. Broussard), was a natural drainage ditch subject to the authority of the Drainage District for cleaning and maintenance. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
The drainage ditch at issue in the present litigation forms the northern boundary line of property owned by Mr. Broussard. Due to the nature and location of the work to be performed, the Drainage District needed access over Mr. Broussard's property for the cleaning and maintenance of the ditch. When Mr. Broussard denied access to the Drainage District, the Drainage District filed suit for a declaratory judgment.
Following a trial on the merits, the trial court found that the drainage ditch at issue was a natural drain which the Drainage District had the authority to clean and maintain. The trial court, in addition to rendering judgment in favor of the Drainage District, imposed specific restrictions on how the work was to be performed by the Drainage District in a manner least invasive and least injurious to Mr. Brous-sard's property. The trial court also cast Mr. Broussard with all costs of court, including the expert witness fee of Plaintiffs expert, which was fixed at $1,000.00. Mr. Broussard appeals.
ISSUES
The issues raised by Mr. Broussard in this appeal are summarized as follows:
| ⅞>1. whether the trial court committed error in finding that the drainage ditch in question was a natural drain;
2. whether the trial court committed error in casting Mr. Broussard with the obligation to pay the expert fees of Elizabeth Girouard; and
3. whether the trial court erred in failing to award Mr. Broussard compensation for the Drainage District's use of the construction servitude.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The statutory provisions governing drainage districts are contained in Title 38 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. These provisions include La.R.S. 38:1764 which provides, in relevant part, that the Drainage District shall have the power "to plan, construct, maintain and operate such works of improvement as land treatment for watershed protection, flood prevention works, irrigation improvements, recreation, municipal and industrial water storage, and fish and wildlife developments." The authority granted by statute and the works therein authorized may be exercised by the Drainage District "so long as they inure to the direct benefit of the district and the inhabitants thereof . for the purpose of securing a proper outlet for the waters of the district or sub-drainage district they represent...." Louisiana Revised Statutes 38:1804 grants additional authority to the Drainage District to "[djrain lands in said district by the construction, maintenance, and operation of gravity and/or forced drainage facilities, including drains, drainage canals, ditches, pumps, and pumping plants, dikes, levees, and other related works" and to "[c]ut and open any drains and canals and open, deepen and enlarge natural drains within or without the district and perform all work in connection therewith which maybe deemed necessary to provide drainage for the lands in the district, and perform all other acts necessary to drain the land in the district and maintain the drainage when established." Finally, La.R.S. |a38:113 provides that the Drainage District "shall have control over all public drainage channels or outfall canals within the limits of their districts which are selected by the district, and for a space of one hundred feet on both sides of the banks of such channels or outfall canals, and one hundred feet continuing outward from the mouth of such channels or outfall canals.... " This authority is granted to the Drainage District "whether the drainage channels or outfall canals have been improved by the levee or drainage district, or have been adopted without improvement as necessary parts of or extensions to improved drainage channels or outfall canals.... "
In the instant matter, Mr. Broussard complains that the trial court erred in its determination that the drainage ditch at issue is a natural drain. This finding of fact by the trial court may not be set aside on appeal absent manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Stobart v. State, through Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). Absent manifest error, application of the foregoing statutory authority to the trial court's factual determination yields the inevitable conclusion that the Drainage District possesses the statutory authority to clean and maintain the ditch at issue, which includes the authority to enter Mr. Broussard's property contiguous thereto.
John Carroll Duhon (Mr. Duhon), a member of the Vermilion Parish Police Jury, whose district encompasses the ditch at issue, testified that the ditch runs from the ditch along Kirk Road westward to an arm of Coulee Use des Cannes. This ditch has historically had drainage problems. According to Mr. Duhon, in response to complaints in 1997 or 1998, the policy jury cleaned out culverts and the ditch paralleling the roadway, and also dug the ditches which connect the ditch along Kirk Road to the Coulee Use Des Cannes in an effort to improve drainage in that area. Mr. |4Puhon also testified that work had been done to clear the ditch between Kirk Road and a cattle guard located west thereof, fifty to seventy-five feet onto Mr. Brous-sard's property. Mr. Duhon also explained the presence of a "dry ramp," a crest or high point located along Kirk Road, on the west and north of Mr. Brous-sard's property. Mr. Duhon testified that because of this dry ramp the water naturally drains south toward Mr. Broussard's property.
Victor Hebert (Mr. Hebert) lives on the east side of Kirk Road, north of Mr. Broussard's property. He testified that "years ago[,]" before he owned his present property, the ditch had been dug to facilitate drainage. Mr. Hebert testified that the ditch on Mr. Broussard's property extends to an unnamed drainage system which has been in existence since he was a child. According to Mr. Hebert, the ditch on Mr. Broussard's property drains the road ditches along Kirk Road. Finally, Mr. Hebert testified that the ditch at issue has been there for as long as he can remember and that it is the only way for the water to drain.
John K. Andrus (Mr. Andrus), the President of the Drainage District, testified that the Drainage District retained Elizabeth Girouard (Ms. Girouard), a civil engineer, to survey the area and to verify that the water that was coming off Kirk Road and the adjacent properties did require the ditch at issue to reach Coulee Use des Cannes. Ms. Girouard prepared a drainage study which was presented to the board.
Expert testimony was given by Ms. Gir-ouard, who testified that she investigated the drainage in the area of the ditch at issue and that her purpose was "to determine where the flow was going and where it was headed." Ms. Girouard visited the location, studied a quadrangle map, and viewed aerial photographs of the area. |fiShe testified that the ditch at issue was present at least since 1955 and "was indicated as a contour to the natural ground" on the quadrangle map. Moreover, according to Ms. Girouard, the ditch at issue is a natural "outfall ditch" which she defined as "a ditch where the surrounding area drains to, to carry water to the ultimate receiving stream." She explained that this ditch "receives water from the high points to the north and south of the entry, of the beginning of the ditch at Kirk Road [ . including] anything that falls into the roadway ditches along Kirk Road from each high point on the north and south." The waters are then deposited via this ditch "into that branch of Coulee Use des Cannes to the south of the coulee." Based upon the aerial photographs of the subject property, Ms. Girouard was of the opinion that this drainage scheme had been there for "forty (40) plus years." It was her uncontroverted expert testimony that the ditch at issue is a natural outfall ditch that is part of the natural drainage scheme of the surrounding area which drains the road ditches of Kirk Road and the surrounding area.
Based upon the foregoing, we find that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that the drainage ditch at issue is a natural drain which forms part of the natural drainage scheme in the geographical area which has been in existence for decades. Thus, the factual findings of the trial court that the drainage ditch at issue is a natural drain and that the Drainage District has the authority to clean and maintain same are not manifestly erroneous.
Mr. Broussard also complains that the trial court erroneously cast him with the costs associated with the expert witness, Ms. Girouard. We disagree.
A trial court is given great discretion in taxing court costs in any manner it deems equitable. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1920. It is the general rule that a party cast in judgment is taxed with the costs of the proceedings. However, the trial court may assess costs in any equitable manner and | ⅜⅛ assessment will not be reversed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Esté v. State Farm Ins. Co., 96-99 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/10/96); 676 So.2d 850.
Trahan v. Asphalt Associates, Inc., 01-311, p. 13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/17/01), 800 So.2d 18, 27.
In this suit for a declaratory judgment, the Drainage District prevailed. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's assessment of the costs of court against Mr. Broussard, including the $1,000.00 expert witness fee fixed by the trial court for Plaintiffs expert, Ms. Girouard.
Mr. Broussard also complains on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to award him compensation for the use of a construction servitude by the Drainage District. We note that La.R.S. 39:113 grants the Drainage District a legal servitude for the use of one hundred feet in order to perform the necessary mainte nance. We further note that the record is void of any evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Broussard was damaged, or the amount of any damages alleged. Therefore, we find this contention to be without merit.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court finding that the drainage ditch located on the property of Pierre Broussard is a natural drain and that the Coulee Kinney Drainage District has the authority to clean and maintain same. We likewise affirm that portion of the trial court judgment casting Pierre Broussard with the costs associated with the expert witness fee of Elizabeth Gir-ouard set at $1,000.00. Finally, we also affirm the judgment of the trial court denying Pierre Broussard compensation for the use of the legal servitude by the Coulee Kinney Drainage District.
17Costs of this appeal are assessed against Pierre W. Broussard.
AFFIRMED.
COOKS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
. The restrictions imposed by the trial court on the manner in which the work was to be performed by the Drainage District are not at issue in the present appeal.
. According to Ms. Girouard, a quadrangle map is "a geodetic survey of the area that shows topography, as far as for roads, streams, [and] contours."