Title: Judith P. Bryan et al. v. Alabama Power Company
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1060693
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 23, 2009

This case was originally assigned to another Justice on
1
this Court.  It was reassigned to Justice Lyons on November
21, 2008.
REL: 01/23/2009
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
 OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
_________________________
1060693
_________________________
Judith P. Bryan et al.
v.
Alabama Power Company
Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court
(CV-05-82)
LYONS, Justice.1
1060693
2
Judith P. Bryan and 35 other parties (collectively "the
farmers") appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of
Alabama Power Company ("APCo") by the Elmore Circuit Court on
their claims of negligence and wantonness.  We affirm. 
I.  Procedural History
The farmers sued APCo in the Elmore Circuit Court on
February 25, 2005.  They alleged that APCo negligently
operated Martin Dam during flood events in May and July 2003
and that its negligent operation of Martin Dam caused flood
damage to their properties, which were downstream from the
dam.  The farmers later amended their complaint to add a
breach-of-contract claim relating to a 1972 settlement
agreement involving APCo's federal license to operate Martin
Dam.  On July 18, 2006, the farmers amended their complaint
again, this time adding a claim of wantonness and abandoning
the breach-of-contract claim.
The parties completed discovery, and on August 25, 2006,
APCo moved for a summary judgment.  The trial court granted
APCo's motion on January 19, 2007, and entered a summary
judgment in APCo's favor as to both the negligence and the
wantonness claims.  The trial court based its decision, in
1060693
3
part, on Ellis v. Alabama Power Co., 431 So. 2d 1242 (Ala.
1983).  The farmers filed a timely notice of appeal to this
Court.  
II.  Facts
A.
Martin Dam
It is undisputed that the farmers own property near the
Tallapoosa River.  APCo operates four hydroelectric dams on
the Tallapoosa River upstream from the farmers' property.
From north to south they are: Harris Dam, Martin Dam, Yates
Dam, and Thurlow Dam.  Yates Dam and Thurlow Dam are "run of
the river" dams, which have no ability to store water and
therefore release as much water as flows into them.  Harris
Dam and Martin Dam have reservoirs that form artificial lakes
above the dams.  The reservoirs provide storage space in which
inflowing water may be held instead of being released
downstream.  Harris Dam and Martin Dam are therefore able to
implement flood-control measures to the extent that storage
space is available in their reservoirs.
The amount of storage space available in a reservoir is
directly related to the level of the lake behind the dam.  The
higher the lake level, the less storage space is available for
inflowing water.  Lake level is measured in terms of feet
1060693
4
above mean sea level.  At Lake Martin above Martin Dam, "full
pool," i.e., the highest summer elevation of the lake, is 490
feet above mean sea level.  APCo does not own land above 490
feet, and once the lake level has reached full pool there is
no storage space.  However, the maximum holding capacity of
the reservoir at Lake Martin is in excess of 500 feet.  Lake
Martin's level is controlled, in part, by releases of water
through the hydraulic turbines or spillway gates at the dam.
APCo operates the Harris, Martin, Yates, and Thurlow Dams
under licenses granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("the FERC").  Its licenses were originally granted
by the Federal Power Commission ("the FPC"); however, the
FPC's responsibilities were transferred to the FERC on October
1, 1977.  APCo's original license for Martin Dam was issued by
the FPC in 1923 for 50 years.  The 1923 license did not
contain any provisions regarding flood control.  
In 1965, when the FPC issued the license for Thurlow Dam,
which is located downstream from Martin Dam, several
downstream landowners attempted to intervene in the licensing
proceeding.  The landowners requested that the FPC require
APCo to maintain storage space at Thurlow Dam between December
1 and April 1 to absorb floodwater.  Recognizing that Thurlow
1060693
5
Dam was a run-of-the-river dam and did not have storage space,
the FPC instead inserted provisions in the license for Thurlow
Dam that required APCo "to operate all of its Tallapoosa River
projects, including the Martin reservoir ...[,] in a manner
which will tend to insure that stages no higher than natural
peak stage can occur downstream from the Thurlow dam."
In 1970, the FPC amended the Thurlow license to state the
following requirements relative to APCo's operation of Martin
Dam:
"Article 33.  [APCo] shall coordinate the operations
of all of its Tallapoosa River Projects in such a
manner that, during periods when inflow to the
reservoirs exceeds the water capacities of hydraulic
turbines, rates of outflow from the reservoirs shall
not exceed concurrent rates of inflow except to
evacuate accumulated surcharge storage subsequent to
the time of peak inflow.
"....
"Article 35.  [APCo] shall in the interests of flood
control and to the extent consistent with Licensee's
power requirements, operate its [Thurlow Dam] in
coordination with all of its Tallapoosa River
Projects, and shall coordinate the operations,
including those required under the provisions of
Article 33 with the District Engineer, [United
States Army] Corps of Engineers."
In a 1975 order regarding the Thurlow license, the FPC
explained that "the purpose of Article 33 is not to ensure
that flooding will be eliminated, but rather that operation of
1060693
Article 34 is not relevant to this proceeding.
2
6
the project will not increase peak flood flow."  The FPC
noted: "It is not in the public interest nor is it the duty of
[APCo] to completely eliminate flooding to the detriment of
power generation, recreation in the reservoir, and other
project purposes."
Articles 33 and 35  of the Thurlow license applied to all
2
APCo's Tallapoosa River dams, including Martin Dam.  APCo's
representatives testified during depositions in this case that
these provisions still apply to Martin Dam.  Martin Dam is not
subject to mandatory flood-control regulations of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps of Engineers"), as is
Harris Dam, which is upstream from Martin Dam; however,
Article 35 requires APCo to coordinate its operation of Martin
Dam with the Corps of Engineers.
In 1970, three years before its 1923 license for Martin
Dam was to expire, APCo filed an application with the FPC to
renew the license.  Pursuant to then existing federal
regulations, APCo filed an exhibit with its application,
Exhibit H, detailing how it would operate Martin Dam during
times of low, normal, and flood flows.  18 C.F.R. § 4.41
1060693
7
(1970).  Two groups of individuals intervened in the
application process and commented regarding APCo's proposed
operation of Martin Dam under Exhibit H.
First, the Lake Martin Recreation Association ("LMRA")
objected to operation of Martin Dam in a manner that would
allow lake levels to fluctuate or to remain low during the
summer months.  The LMRA contended that "the configuration of
Lake Martin is such that a draw down of only a few feet
exposes thousands of acres of [lake] bottom," rendering boat
ramps, wharves, and piers unuseable.  Second, downstream
landowners objected to the operation of Martin Dam in a manner
that would allow high lake levels during rainy seasons.
Specifically, they wanted the FPC to require APCo to maintain
storage space in the Lake Martin reservoir between December 1
and April 1 each year.  They stated: "There exists no threat
of flood between 1 April and 15 September. Thus, during this
period (1 April - 15 September), there exists no valid flood
control reason that a relatively stable pool level would not
be maintained at Lake Martin near maximum elevation."
After negotiations, APCo and the intervenors reached an
agreement regarding the drawdown and fluctuation of the lake
level at Lake Martin.  Pursuant to that agreement, APCo
1060693
8
drafted a revised Exhibit H ("Settlement Exhibit H"), which
balanced the competing interests of the LMRA and the
downstream landowners.  Settlement Exhibit H included a chart
showing 
the 
flood-control 
guideline 
and 
the 
operating
guideline for Martin Dam.  The flood-control guideline
specifies the high lake level at which mandatory flood-control
operations will engage throughout the year.  The operating
guideline is a guide for target lake levels throughout the
year; it is not mandatory.  Together, the flood-control
guideline and the operating guideline make up the "operating
curve" for Lake Martin.  From May through mid-July, the
operating curve shows the flood-control guideline at full
pool, 490 feet, and the operating guideline at 489 feet.
Accordingly, for the months at issue in this action,
Settlement Exhibit H specified that APCo was to maintain Lake
Martin at a lake level between 489 and 490 feet. 
Depending on the lake level specified by the operating
curve, 
Settlement 
Exhibit 
H 
established 
flood-control
operations for Martin Dam in the form of controlled releases
of water increasing to no more than 50,000 cubic feet per
second ("cfs") up to a lake level of 490 feet.  If the lake
level continued to rise above 490 feet, Settlement Exhibit H
1060693
9
specified that APCo should operate Martin Dam at its full
discharge capacity of 145,000 cfs only after lake level
reached 490.5 feet.  Settlement Exhibit H also stated that
APCo was to communicate with the Corps of Engineers during
flood periods and to modify its operations pursuant to
instructions from the Corps of Engineers if greater flood-
control benefits could be attained.  APCo filed Settlement
Exhibit H with the FPC in February 1973, and the intervenors
withdrew their objections.  At the FPC's request, the Corps of
Engineers reviewed Settlement Exhibit H.  The Corps concluded
that "the seasonal operating plan for the Martin project as
shown in [Settlement] Exhibit H is satisfactory with respect
to flood control operation."  
The FPC extended APCo's license to operate Martin Dam. In
May 1978, after the transfer of authority from the FPC to the
FERC in 1977, the FERC issued APCo a new license to operate
Martin Dam for 40 years, effective as of the 1973 expiration
of its original license.  In the 1978 license, the FERC
identified numerous purposes and uses of the Martin Dam and
reservoir, 
including 
"limited flood control" when 
the
reservoir is in drawdown condition.  The 1978 license included
Settlement Exhibit H and 
recognized 
the 
flood-control
1060693
The FERC's renewal of the license for Martin Dam in 1978
3
notes that the Martin license is subject to Articles 33-35 of
the Thurlow license.  The Thurlow license was subsequently
amended to exclude those provisions but, based on the FERC's
1978 amendment, APCo concedes that, as to the Martin license,
it remains subject to those provisions.
10
obligations imposed by Articles 33 and 35 of the Thurlow
license.   Consistent with the operating curve in Settlement
3
Exhibit H, the license states that the reservoir will usually
reach full pool in May and maintain an elevation above 487
feet until after September 1.
In November 1978, APCo sent a letter to the FERC
informing the FERC of changes APCo was implementing in the
proposed flood-control operations of Martin Dam.  APCo advised
the FERC that it wanted to delete certain paragraphs from the
flood-control operations detailed in Settlement Exhibit H and
replace them with the following statement:
"When the reservoir is above the Flood Control
Guideline and above elevation 488, turbines at
Martin Dam will be operated [to provide a continuous
outflow of approximately 11,000 cfs] and further, if
required to avoid rising above elevation 490.0, will
be operated to provide an outflow from Martin
Reservoir at least equivalent to all turbine units
available operating at full gate and gates will be
raised so that the reservoir will not exceed
elevation 490.0 except after all gates are raised
and inflow exceeds the gate capacity. At elevation
490.0, the spillway will have a discharge capacity
of 133,000 cfs."
1060693
11
Accordingly, the 1978 amendment did not allow the lake level
to rise above 490 feet and did not prevent APCo from using its
full discharge capacity of 145,000 cfs until the level reached
490.5 feet.  As previously noted, Settlement Exhibit H had
specified that APCo should operate Martin Dam at its full
discharge capacity of 145,000 cfs only after the lake level
had reached 490.5 feet.  APCo's representatives testified that
APCo made this change because it did not own property above
490 feet.  The change did not affect the flood-control
guideline or the operating curve.  APCo did not notify the
1970 intervenors of the change.  APCo offered to provide
additional information regarding the change in operations to
the FERC; however, the FERC never requested more information
from APCo.  The FERC did not expressly approve the 1978
amendment to Settlement Exhibit H.  However, at APCo's
request, after the farmers commenced this action, the FERC
confirmed that the 1978 amendment to Settlement Exhibit H is
binding on APCo.
Pursuant to the operating curve in Settlement Exhibit H
as amended by the 1978 amendment, APCo maintained Lake Martin
at full pool--490 feet--or slightly below during the summer
months.  In 1989, without prompting from the FERC, the Corps
1060693
12
of Engineers, or any outside source, APCo decided to maintain
one-half foot of storage in the Lake Martin reservoir and
thereafter maintained Lake Martin at 489.5 feet during the
summer months.  APCo used the one-half foot of storage for
several project purposes, including flood control.  APCo's
representatives testified that the additional one-half foot of
storage enables APCo to begin flood-control operations at a
lower lake level and helps prevent the lake level from rising
above 490 feet.  APCo pre-evacuates water in anticipation of
flood events through the turbines at Martin Dam; it does not
release water through the dam's spillway gates for pre-
evacuation purposes.
B. 
The May 2003 Flood
The Tallapoosa River basin flooded in early May 2003 as
a result of heavy rainfall upstream and downstream from Harris
Dam.  It is undisputed that APCo maintained the lake level at
the Martin reservoir in compliance with the operating curve in
Settlement Exhibit H, as amended, before the flood.  The
parties dispute how far in advance APCo was on notice of the
potential for flooding in May 2003.  The parties also dispute
whether APCo could have been aware of the precise location
1060693
13
rainfall would be heaviest and, consequently, where inflows
would be higher along the Tallapoosa River.
It is undisputed that on May 7, 2003, APCo pre-evacuated
water through the turbines at Martin Dam and lowered the lake
level to 489.24 feet.  Accordingly, the Martin reservoir had
approximately .7 feet of storage space for flood-control
operations at the time of the May 2003 flood.  The inflow into
the Martin reservoir peaked between 1 and 2 o'clock a.m. on
May 9, 2003.  During the storms, APCo engaged in controlled
releases of water, keeping the lake level at 489.94 feet.  The
peak discharge from Martin Dam during the flood was
approximately 128,300 cfs.  APCo's flood-control operations
reduced 
flows 
by 
approximately 
9,300 
cfs 
immediately
downstream from Martin Dam.  
It is undisputed that during the May 2003 flood, APCo
complied with the flood-control procedures in the 1978
amendment to Settlement Exhibit H and with Articles 33 and 35
of the Thurlow license.  APCo also coordinated with the Corps
of Engineers as required by Settlement Exhibit H.  At all
times during the May 2003 flood, the rate of outflow from
Harris, Martin, Yates, and Thurlow Dams was less than the
concurrent rate of inflow, except after the inflow peaked and
1060693
14
the dams were operated to evacuate water that had accumulated
in the storage spaces of the reservoirs.
The parties dispute whether the May 2003 rain event was
a common event or an unusual event.  The record does not
include detailed information regarding damage to the farmers'
properties as a result of the May 2003 flood; however, the
parties do not dispute that the farmers' properties were
damaged.  The farmers' expert testified that APCo did not
maintain storage space at Martin reservoir during the summer
months and that what storage space was available during the
May 2003 flood was not enough.  The expert declined to state
what lake level APCo should have maintained at Lake Martin;
however, he opined that APCo should have reserved between 2
and 3 feet of storage space during the summer months for flood
control, thus maintaining a lake level of between 487 and 488
feet, below the operating curve.
The farmers' expert admitted that his calculations did
not account for intervening flows downstream from Martin Dam
and stated that even more storage space should have been
reserved to account for downstream flows between Martin Dam
and the farmers' properties.  The expert also testified that
an additional foot and a half of storage space would not have
1060693
15
prevented the May 2003 flooding and that operating under the
flood-control procedures stated in Settlement Exhibit H
instead of the 1978 amendment would not have made any
appreciable 
difference 
in 
the 
flooding 
that 
occurred
downstream.
C.
The July 2003 Flood
In early July 2003, the Tallapoosa River basin flooded as
a result of heavy rains associated with Tropical Storm Bill.
The record shows that meteorologists had made errors in
predicting the path of the storm such that heavy rains were
not predicted for the Tallapoosa River basin until June 30,
2003, the day before the heaviest rainfall of the storm on the
morning of July 1, 2003.  On June 30, 2003, APCo lowered the
lake level in the Martin reservoir from 489.6 feet to 489.47
feet, leaving .53 feet of storage space.  The band of heaviest
rainfall was split evenly upstream and downstream from Martin
Dam but did not reach as far upstream as Harris Dam.  The
inflow into the Martin reservoir peaked between 9 and 10
o'clock a.m. on July 1, 2003.  During the storm, APCo engaged
in controlled releases of water, keeping the lake level at
489.99 feet.  The peak discharge from Martin Dam during the
flood was approximately 90,881 cfs.
1060693
16
It is undisputed that APCo maintained the lake level at
the Martin reservoir in compliance with the operating curve in
Settlement Exhibit H before the flood.  It is also undisputed
that, during the July 2003 flood, APCo complied with the
flood-control procedures stated in the 1978 amendment to
Settlement Exhibit H, complied with Articles 33 and 35 of the
Thurlow license, and coordinated its actions with the Corps of
Engineers.  At all times during the July 2003 flood, the rate
of outflow from Martin, Yates, and Thurlow Dams was less than
the concurrent rate of inflow, except after the inflow peaked
and the dams were operated to evacuate the water that
accumulated in the storage space of the reservoir for the
Martin Dam.  During the period of greatest inflows into the
Martin reservoir, APCo's operation of Martin Dam reduced
downstream flows by 6,383 cfs.
The 
record 
does 
not 
include 
detailed 
information
regarding damage to the farmers' properties as a result of the
July 2003 flood, but the parties do not dispute that the
farmers' properties were damaged.  The farmers' expert
testified, as he did regarding the May 2003 flood, that APCo
should have maintained two to three feet or more of storage
space in the Martin reservoir.  However, he also testified
1060693
17
that an additional foot and a half of storage space would not
have prevented the July 2003 flooding.  He admitted that
operating under the flood-control procedures stated in
Settlement Exhibit H instead of the 1978 amendment would not
have made any appreciable difference in the flooding that
occurred downstream.  He also testified that rainfall
downstream from Martin Dam contributed to the flooding.
III.  Standard of Review
"'The standard of review applicable to a summary
judgment is the same as the standard for granting
the motion....' McClendon v. Mountain Top Indoor
Flea Market, Inc., 601 So. 2d 957, 958 (Ala. 1992).
"'A summary judgment is proper when
there is no genuine issue of material fact
and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3),
Ala. R. Civ. P. The burden is on the moving
party to make a prima facie showing that
there is no genuine issue of material fact
and that it is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. In determining whether the
movant has carried that burden, the court
is to view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party and to
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
that party. To defeat a properly supported
summary judgment motion, the nonmoving
party must present "substantial evidence"
creating a genuine issue of material fact--
"evidence of such weight and quality that
fair-minded persons in the exercise of
impartial judgment can reasonably infer the
existence of the fact sought to be proved."
Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v.
1060693
18
Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547
So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).'
"Capital Alliance Ins. Co. v. Thorough-Clean, Inc.,
639 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Ala. 1994).  Questions of law
are reviewed de novo.  Alabama Republican Party v.
McGinley, 893 So. 2d 337, 342 (Ala. 2004)."
Alabama Elec. Coop. v. Bailey's Constr. Co., 950 So. 2d 280,
283 (Ala. 2006).
IV.  Analysis
On appeal, the parties primarily argue whether APCo owed
a heightened duty of flood control to the farmers with respect
to its operation of Martin Dam.  Both the farmers' negligence
claim and their wantonness claim require proof that APCo owed
them a duty.  See, e.g., DiBiasi v. Joe Wheeler Elec.
Membership Corp., 988 So. 2d 454, 460 (Ala. 2008); George v.
Alabama Power Co., [Ms. 1070389, Oct. 31, 2008] ___ So. 2d
___, ___ (Ala. 2008).  "In Alabama, the existence of a duty is
a strictly legal question to be determined by the court."
Taylor v. Smith, 892 So. 2d 887, 891 (Ala. 2004).  See also
Baugus v. City of Florence, 985 So. 2d 413, 419 (Ala.
2007)("The existence of a duty is a question of law for the
court to resolve.").
A.  APCo's Common-Law and Federally Imposed Duties
1060693
19
This Court has stated: "It is settled by our decisions
that one who constructs a dam in a navigable stream is not an
insurer against damages to lower owners, even when such
damages are caused by the breaking of the dam.  Some element
of negligent conduct must appear." Alabama Power Co. v. Smith,
229 Ala. 105, 111, 155 So. 601, 604 (1934).  Regarding the
duty owed by the operator of a dam to downstream landowners,
this Court has more recently stated:
"The law in Alabama is clear that an action which
asserts liability for damages for the release of
water will not lie in the absence of negligence.
This Court has consistently held that one who owns
or operates a dam owes a duty to lower riparian
owners only to exercise reasonable care in operating
or maintaining the dam."
Ellis v. Alabama Power Co., 431 So. 2d 1242, 1245 (Ala. 1983).
In Ellis, landowners on the Coosa River between Lay Dam
and Mitchell Dam sued APCo, alleging negligence, trespass, and
nuisance in connection with the flooding of their property in
1979.  The trial court entered a summary judgment in APCo's
favor, and the landowners appealed.  The evidence showed that
APCo had operated Mitchell Dam and Lay Dam and Logan Martin
Dam, which is upstream from the Mitchell and Lay Dams, subject
to and in compliance with regulations of the Corps of
Engineers.  The evidence also showed that the peak discharge
1060693
20
from Logan Martin Dam during the 1979 flood was not greater
than would have occurred under natural conditions, i.e., if
there had been no dam.  431 So. 2d at 1243-44.
This Court determined that APCo was not liable in
nuisance because the landowners complained of a public
nuisance and had no private right of action.  431 So. 2d at
1244.  Regarding trespass, this Court concluded that the
landowners had failed to show that APCo's actions were
unlawful or wrongful.  With respect to negligence, this Court
clarified the duty owed to a lower riparian landowner as
quoted above and agreed with the trial court's finding that
the landowners failed to meet the burden of proof of
negligence.  This Court also noted that the landowners had not
cited any authority imposing on APCo the duty to acquire an
additional storage easement.
The Ellis Court buttressed its findings of failure to
offer evidence of wrongful, unlawful, or negligent conduct
with dicta as to absence of evidence of causation, stating: 
"Further, even assuming arguendo that there was a
showing of negligence on the part of APCo, there was
no showing by plaintiffs that this negligence
proximately caused in fact the damage to their
property (i.e. that absent the dams their property
would not have been flooded to the same extent or
perhaps more so)."
1060693
21
Ellis, 431 So. 2d at 1246.  The Court noted that APCo's
operation of Mitchell Dam had actually mitigated the flooding
of the landowners' properties.  In Ellis, this Court found
uncontradicted 
evidence 
of 
compliance 
with 
federal 
regulations
to be incompatible with a claim of breach of duty to a lower
riparian landowner.
The farmers attempt to distinguish Ellis on the basis
that the dams at issue in that case were subject to
regulations of the Corps of Engineers while Martin Dam was
not.  However, the evidence showed that APCo's operation of
Martin Dam was subject to federal regulation in the form of
the FERC licenses for Martin and Thurlow Dams.  Although they
were not as detailed as the regulations of the Corps of
Engineers, at all times relevant to this action the FERC
licenses imposed specific duties on APCo with respect to its
operation of Martin Dam.  For example, the operating curve of
the 1978 FERC license for Martin Dam specified that APCo was
to maintain the lake level between 489 and 490 feet.
Additionally, the FERC licenses specified that during flood
periods APCo was not to operate Martin Dam with a rate of
outflow 
greater 
than 
the 
concurrent 
rate 
of 
inflow.
Furthermore, the FERC licenses required APCo to communicate
1060693
22
and coordinate with the Corps of Engineers with respect to its
flood-control operations.  The record shows that the FERC
licenses govern many other aspects of APCo's operation of
Martin Dam as well.  In light of the extensive federal
involvement in APCo's operation of Martin Dam via the FERC
licenses, it is apparent that Martin Dam is part of a general
scheme of federal coordination and regulation of navigable
waterways, including coordination with the Corps of Engineers.
We do not find the fact that Martin Dam is not subject to
detailed Corps of Engineers regulations to be a material point
of distinction between this action and Ellis.
As in Ellis, APCo complied with the federal regulations
governing its operation of Martin Dam during the floods at
issue in this action.  Pursuant to the FERC licenses, APCo
maintained lake levels within the operating curve before the
May and July 2003 floods; communicated and coordinated with
the Corps of Engineers during the floods; and maintained
outflows less than the concurrent rate of inflow.  The farmers
argue that APCo did not actually comply with the requirements
of its FERC license because it operated pursuant to the flood-
control operations stated in the 1978 amendment to Settlement
Exhibit H and that amendment had not been expressly approved
1060693
23
by the FERC.  However, the evidence presented to the trial
court from the farmers' expert shows that this distinction is
irrelevant.  As to both the May and July 2003 floods, the
farmers' expert testified that APCo's operation under the
flood-control procedures stated in Settlement Exhibit H
instead of those stated in the 1978 amendment would not have
made any appreciable difference in the flooding that occurred
downstream.  Accordingly, APCo's compliance with the flood-
control requirements in the 1978 amendment instead of
Settlement Exhibit H is immaterial.  
The evidence shows that the 1978 amendment and Settlement
Exhibit H were identical with respect to the lake level of the
Martin reservoir, the farmers' primary area of grievance.
They were also identical with respect to APCo's general
operating requirements during flood flows.  The evidence
showed that APCo complied with those requirements and
satisfied its federally imposed duties with respect to the
operation of Martin Dam during the May and July 2003 floods.
Additionally, it is apparent from the record that APCo's
activities during the floods lessened the outflows from Martin
Dam such that the flooding that did occur downstream was less
than what would have occurred naturally.  Accordingly, the
1060693
24
evidence showed that APCo complied with its common-law duty
not cause greater flooding than would have occurred naturally.
B.
A Heightened Duty of Flood Control
The farmers concede that APCo does not owe them a duty to
eliminate flooding.  However, they contend that APCo owed them
a "heightened duty" of flood control beyond that imposed by
the common law or by federal regulation.  Specifically, the
farmers contend that, under this heightened duty, APCo was
required to "minimize" downstream flooding by maintaining
"adequate" storage capacity in the Martin reservoir.  
The farmers do not cite to any Alabama law to support the
imposition of such a duty.  They do not define what they mean
by "minimizing" downstream flooding.  Furthermore, they
expressly decline to state what storage capacity would be
"adequate" under their formulation of the heightened duty.
The farmers appear to base their argument regarding the
heightened duty, in part, on their argument regarding a
voluntary assumption, which will be discussed separately
below.  However, to the extent that the farmers argue that
APCo owed them an independent "heightened duty" of flood
control, the farmers have not cited any authority to support
their argument, and we are not persuaded that such a duty
1060693
25
exists or that this Court is the suitable entity properly
equipped to set standards applicable to such a duty.
C.
Voluntary Assumption
Finally, the farmers contend that APCo voluntarily
assumed a duty to operate Martin Dam for flood control during
the summer months.  For purposes of this argument, the farmers
define "flood control" and APCo's resulting duty as the
maintenance of a lake level at Martin reservoir between 487
and 488 feet, so as to allow 2 to 3 feet of storage in the
reservoir.  The basis for the scope of this duty apparently
rests on the testimony of the farmers' expert that APCo should
have maintained two to three feet of storage in the Martin
reservoir.  The farmers also argue that flood control includes
pre-evacuation of the reservoir to create additional storage
before a flood event.
The farmers argue that APCo assumed this duty by
voluntarily maintaining the lake level at Martin reservoir at
489.5 feet during the summer months, thus providing .5 feet of
storage space in the reservoir.  The farmers also note that
one of APCo's representatives testified that APCo in fact
operated Martin Dam for flood-control purposes all year and
that "flood control" involved minimizing downstream floods.
1060693
26
An APCo representative also testified that APCo did, at times,
pre-evacuate the Martin reservoir to create storage space in
anticipation of flood events.  Based on these facts, the
farmers contend that APCo voluntarily assumed the duty of
flood control defined above.
APCo denies that its voluntary maintenance of .5 feet of
storage space imposed on it an obligation to maintain 2 to 3
feet of storage space.  It also notes that its representatives
testified that the .5 feet of storage space was used for
multiple project purposes, including, but not limited to,
flood control.  Also, the record shows that another of APCo's
representatives testified that "flood control" involved only
reducing outflows, not minimizing floods.  Furthermore, the
record shows that the .5 feet of storage space is within the
operating curve stated in the 1978 FERC license whereas any
duty to operate Martin reservoir between 487 and 488 feet
would require APCo to maintain a lake level below that
specified in the operating curve.
This Court has stated: "Alabama clearly recognizes the
doctrine that one who volunteers to act, though under no duty
to do so, is thereafter charged with the duty of acting with
due care and is liable for negligence in connection
1060693
27
therewith."  Dailey v. City of Birmingham, 378 So. 2d 728, 729
(Ala. 1979).  "However, the existence of a voluntarily assumed
duty through affirmative conduct is a matter for determination
in light of all the facts and circumstances."  Parker v.
Thyssen Mining Constr., Inc., 428 So. 2d 615, 618 (Ala. 1983).
The relevant inquiry often involves the scope, as well as the
existence, of the duty assumed.  See, e.g., Springhill Hosps.,
Inc. v. Larrimore, [Ms. 1051748, Feb. 29, 2008] ___ So. 2d
___, ___ (Ala. 2008) (noting that the scope of a pharmacist's
voluntary undertaking is a fact-specific inquiry); Dailey v.
Housing Auth. for Birmingham Dist., 639 So. 2d 1343, 1346
(Ala. 1994)(discussing the limits of the scope of a duty
voluntarily assumed where landlord hired security guard);
Hodge v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 539 So. 2d 229, 230
(Ala. 1989) (workers' compensation insurance case in which
this Court noted that the plaintiff bears the burden of
proving 
the 
scope 
of 
the 
duty 
voluntarily 
assumed).
Furthermore, the underlying principle that the "existence of
a duty is a question of law for the court to resolve" applies.
Baugus v. City of Florence, 985 So. 2d 413, 419 (Ala. 2007).
We must determine whether, by maintaining .5 feet of
storage space in Martin reservoir, APCo voluntarily assumed a
1060693
28
legal duty to maintain 2 to 3 feet of storage, approximately
4 to 6 times as much.  The farmers cite Kunz v. Utah Power &
Light Co., 526 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1975), to support their
argument; however, they do not point to any Alabama law
discussing 
the 
voluntary 
assumption 
of 
flood-control
obligations.  In Kunz, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit concluded that the operator of a dam had
voluntarily assumed a duty of flood control where it had
altered water flows and regularly stored runoff from melting
snow each spring.  526 F.2d at 501-03.  The Ninth Circuit
noted that, in reliance on the activities of the operator of
the dam, the plaintiffs in Kuntz had changed their farming
operations.  526 F.2d at 502.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit
concluded that a relationship existed between the dam operator
and the plaintiffs such that the dam operator owed a duty to
the plaintiffs to reduce flooding.  526 So. 2d at 503.
Most of the circumstances present in Kunz are not present
in this action.  No evidence shows that APCo regularly
operated Martin Dam with 2 to 3 feet of storage during the
months of May and July; in fact, the evidence showed that APCo
annually operated Martin reservoir within .5 feet of full
pool.  Additionally, the farmers did not present any evidence
1060693
29
indicating that they had altered their farming operations or
any other use of their property in relation to APCo's
activities.  No evidence supports the conclusion that a
relationship existed between APCo and the farmers similar to
the relationship upon which the Ninth Circuit based its
decision in Kunz.
Applying general principles regarding the voluntary
assumption of a duty and the scope of the duty assumed, we
cannot say that, by voluntarily maintaining .5 feet of storage
for purposes not limited to flood control, APCo assumed a duty
to maintain 2 to 3 feet of storage dedicated to flood control.
In so concluding, we are mindful of the fact that operating
Martin Dam to attain such storage would require APCo to
maintain a lake level below the operating curve established by
the FERC and approved by the Corps of Engineers. We are also
mindful of the delicate balancing of interests between
upstream and downstream landowners along the Tallapoosa River
basin.  The balancing of those interests is subject to federal
regulations and has been challenged, negotiated, and agreed
upon by various individuals and entities during the last
several decades.  The farmers have not presented adequate
authority justifying this Court's interference with the
1060693
30
regulation 
and 
previous 
balancing 
of 
such 
interests.
Accordingly, we decline to recognize a voluntary assumption of
a duty of flood control.
V.  Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that APCo showed
that it did not breach its duty to the farmers.  Accordingly,
the trial court correctly concluded that no genuine issue of
material fact existed and that APCo was entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.  We therefore affirm the summary judgment
entered by the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
Cobb, C.J., and Woodall, Stuart, and Bolin, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., recuses himself.