Opinion ID: 2214514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether E-L owns the extracted groundwater is inapposite in this case.

Text: ¶ 25 To determine whether a taking occurred, E-L argues that the first question that must be addressed is whether property owners have a property right in groundwater. As E-L correctly points out, there can be no takings claim if that which the Sewerage District allegedly took is not E-L's property. However, E-L introduced no proof as to the value of the extracted groundwater. Instead, E-L seeks damages that flow from the allegation that when the Sewerage District pumped groundwater from the trench, the groundwater level beneath E-L's building was lowered, causing the wood piles to dry out and the building to settle. E-L's opening and closing arguments at trial make clear that instead of seeking damages for the value of the extracted groundwater, E-L seeks damages for the cost to repair the wood piles and E-L's building. ¶ 26 In its opening argument, E-L claimed that the Sewerage District took E-L's groundwater but consistently spoke of damage to E-L's wood piles and building: [The Sewerage District] knew that its partial taking of the property, taking of groundwater would result in a lower value of E-L's building. You take the groundwater, the piles rot, your building sinks, your building is not worth what it was. .... As a result of [the Sewerage District] taking groundwater, E-L's property lost value, the entire property. We believe the value of the building lost the value equal to the amount of the repairs that had to be done. If I'm going to sell a house and you think it's worth $400,000, and I know the roof needs to be repaired for $30,000, somebody buying that is going to say, no, it's not $400,000, it's worth 370. They're going to take out the value. And that's what E-L contends is the amount taken. The loss in the value of their property. And the amount that we're seeking on that is just the amount E-L paid out of pocket. .... Everything we show you at trial is for you to see why E-L should be compensated for the taking of the groundwater by [the Sewerage District]. And how much money will equal the value of the groundwater taken by [the Sewerage District] and the harm caused to E-L from the damage to its piles. ¶ 27 Similarly, in its closing argument, E-L reiterated to the jury that E-L was seeking damages for the cost to repair its building: The next question [on the special verdict form] asks what amount should E-L be paid for its just compensation. And here's where we're going on this. .... ... The reduction in the fair market value was what were the repairs that had to be done on this place. And the repairs that had to be done are summarized in Exhibit 51 [17] for you. There's multiple exhibits that have all the invoices, but if you look at Exhibit 51, you're going to find a summary. .... ... The number we're asking for when you add up all the number [sic] for the 2003 work, the 2004 work, and the attorney fees, we had to fight, you know, we had an easement that was a very standard easement. [18] We had an [sic] to get permission to go underneath and dig under that building.... .... So, ladies and gentlemen, when you add to the 2,300 from Dahlman, the 2003 expenses, the 2004, and legal fees, the number I come to is 309,388, and that's what I'm going to ask that you find as compensation for the amount of the taking. ¶ 28 It is clear from E-L's opening and closing arguments that instead of seeking damages for the value of the extracted groundwater, E-L seeks damages for the cost to repair the wood piles and E-L's building. ¶ 29 Because E-L introduced no proof as to the value of the extracted groundwater, the court of appeals' reliance on Dahlman is misplaced. [19] It is true, as noted by the court of appeals, E-L Enters., 316 Wis.2d 280, ¶ 9, 763 N.W.2d 231, that in Dahlman, this court held that the removal of a building's lateral support by street grading constituted a compensable taking. 131 Wis. at 436-40, 111 N.W. 675. There is a significant distinction, however, between Dahlman and this case. In Dahlman, we concluded that even though the subsidence of the soil caused no depreciation in the value of the property owners' premises, the property owners were still entitled to recover nominal damages for the value of the property taken for public use, which in that case, was soil. Id. In this case, E-L introduced no proof as to the value of the extracted groundwater. Instead, E-L seeks damages for the cost to repair its building and for the loss of use of the wood piles. Because E-L introduced no proof as to the value of the extracted groundwater, we need not decide today whether E-L owns the groundwater. Accordingly, the issue of whether a landowner owns the groundwater beneath his property is not before us today. [20]