Opinion ID: 1250356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the experts

Text: Hughes called John Baker, a civil engineer, as an expert witness to testify about the cause of the river's overflow. Baker had prepared two water surface profiles of the river. One profile was prepared for 1983 when the river's flow was 5,500 cfs; the other for 1984 when the flow was 1,200 cfs. Measurements were taken 500 feet downstream from Enterprise's diversion dam and 2,000 feet upstream from that structure. For the stretch of the river from west of the highway bridge to Enterprise's dam, the riverbed had a natural slope of 6.6 feet per mile. Taking into account the various elevations and other measurements, such as the river's depth and rate of flow at the flood site, Baker concluded that the river, in the absence of Enterprise's dam, could have accommodated an additional depth of 2½ to 3 feet before reaching 5,500 cfs and running over its north bank. However, with the dam as an obstruction raising the level of the river, the additional water backed up to the point of overflow west of the highway bridge. Therefore, according to Baker, Enterprise's dam caused inundation of Hughes' land west of the highway and the presence of water on the land east of the highway. Enterprise called an expert witness, Meredith Schaff, a consulting engineer who was familiar with the river and its flood problems. Schaff's experience included work for the Corps of Engineers and cities along the river. Schaff disputed Baker's method and computations. Referring to Baker's 1983 river profile, Schaff testified that the profile really shows ... that there's so much water flowing down the stream and the water's going over the top of the [dam which] actually has no damming effect. To buttress his position, Schaff then referred to Baker's 1984 river profile, when the river's flow was 1,200 cfs. At the diversion dam, with the depth of the river increased by the obstruction, the water backed up less than 150 feet before the water which had accumulated at the dam flowed over the top of the dam. Under such circumstances, the diversion dam was merely a spillway over which the river flowed without affecting any upstream depth and, consequently, did not affect the river's flow or depth at the point of overflow onto Hughes' land. Thus, Schaff concluded that Enterprise's diversion dam was not a cause of any water problem, whether inundation or seepage, on Hughes' land. The district court specifically found that any overflow was not proximately caused by [Enterprise's] diversion structure, found generally in favor of Enterprise on all causes of action, and dismissed Hughes' petition. Hughes has raised several assignments of error, but each is an aspect of the basic contention that the district court erred in its finding that Enterprise, by its diversion dam, did not cause damage to Hughes.