Opinion ID: 1559181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Heightened Duty of Flood Control

Text: 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 The farmers do not cite to any Alabama law to support the imposition of such a duty.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 exists or that this Court is the suitable entity properly equipped to set standards applicable to such a duty.