Court Opinion

ID: 9679289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:46:38.936857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:12.081108
License: Public Domain

TODD, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The majority opinion lists five relevant trial court findings. The trial court made no such findings. In its conclusions of law the trial court stated:
1.The elevation of County Ditch No. 9 as originally constructed is 1155.9 at Station 155.60 on the project plans, and 1155.4 at Station 113.70 on the project plans.
2. The elevation of County Ditch No. 9 as designed is 1155.8 at Station 155.60 on the project plans, and 1155.0 at Station 113.70 on the project plans.
3. The amended plans of the project engineer for County Ditch No. 9 are approved and adopted. The plans constitute a repair. The elevation as originally designed is 1155.8 at Station 155.60 and *2741155.0 at Station 113.70 on the project plans.
The net result is that at Station 155.60 the original construction was .1 foot higher than the design elevation at Station 113.70. The original construction was .4 foot higher than the design elevation.
The DNR claimed that a reduction of .4 foot in the ditch would result in the drainage of 230 acres of wetlands and a possible reduction from type 3 wetlands to type 2 wetlands. The trial court never accepted this evidence as true. It stated that if it assumed the evidence to be true, it made no difference.
The majority contends itself with an overly literal reading of Minn.Stat. § 106.471 (1982) and, in doing so, reverses our court’s interpretation of the statute which has stood unchallenged for over 30 years. In Taylor v. County of Sherburne, 243 Minn. 303, 67 N.W.2d 827 (1954), this court properly interpreted the statutory definition of “repair” as permitting work to restore a drainage ditch to its original design. Id. at 307, 67 N.W.2d at 830. That decision made sense.
The majority contends that prior to the enactment of Minn.Stat. § 106.471, subd. 1 (1982), the statutory definition of “repair” was based on “original purpose.” While that may be, I do not believe the present statute is based on “original construction.” The current statute states:
The term “repair” as used in this section means restoring all or a part of a ditch system as nearly as practicable to the same condition as when originally constructed or subsequently improved

M.S. § 106.471, subd. 1(a) (emphasis supplied).
The language of the statute clearly refers to restoration as nearly as possible of the original condition of the ditch. Nothing in the statute limits the repair of the ditch to its original construction. The original condition of the ditch was such that it was free of obstacles or cave-in which precluded the flow of water. A repair is designed to restore this condition. In drafting the present repair statute, I do not believe the Legislature was aware of the emphasis which might be placed on the words, “as when originally constructed.”
The majority correctly observes that the present definition of “repair” is more restrictive than its statutory predecessors. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. §§ 106.48, .49 (1941). Prior to 1945, there was, in fact, no separate statutory definition of “repair.” Compare id. with Act of March 9, 1945, ch. 82, § 1, 1945 Minn.Laws 124, 124. “Repairs” and “improvements” were not distinguished. See Minn.Stat. §§ 106.48, .49 (1941). The majority, however, incorrectly concludes that restoration of a ditch so that it conforms with the engineer’s design plans is an “improvement.”
Although “widening and deepening” a drainage ditch so that it served its “original purpose” was a “repair” prior to 1945, the classification of similar work as either a “repair” or an “improvement” under Minn. Stat. §§ 106.471, .501 (1982) should depend on whether that work exceeds the specifications contained in the engineer’s plans, not on whether it exceeds original construction. In reaching its decision, the majority ignores the importance of the engineer’s design plans under the Minnesota Drainage Code, Chapter 106.
An examination of the code reveals that:
(1) The order of the county board which establishes a drainage ditch is based on the engineer’s plans. Minn.Stat. § 106.201, subd. 2 (1982).
(2) The contract for construction must provide that the work will be performed according to the engineer’s plans and specifications. Minn.Stat. § 106.221, subd. 1 (1982).
(3) The engineer must approve any bid for the construction work to ensure that it complies with the plans. Minn.Stat. § 106.231, subd. 4 (1982).
(4) The county board or court has the duty to make sure that construction work conforms to the plans and speci*275fications. Minn.Stat. § 106.261 (1982).
(5) Bridges and culverts must be constructed and maintained in accordance with the engineer’s plans. Minn.Stat. § 106.271 (1982).
(6) If circumstances require any deviation from the engineer’s plans during construction, those plans must be modified to reflect the changes. Minn.Stat. §§ 106.221, subd. 2, 106.-121, subd. 8 (1982).
(7) It is the engineer’s duty during construction to inspect the work so that it is performed according to the plans, specifications and contract for construction. Minn.Stat. § 106.281 (1982).
(8) Payment on the construction contract is conditioned upon an engineer’s report that the completed ditch conforms to the plans. Minn.Stat. § 106.331 (1982).
(9) Finally and most importantly, the assessments on benefitted properties are based on the establishment order, which in turn is based on the engineer’s plans. Minn.Stat. §§ 106.201, subd. 2, 106.341, subd. 1, 4 (1982).
From my review of the Drainage Code, I believe it is highly unlikely that the Legislature intended the words, “as when originally constructed,” to be distinguished from “as originally designed”. Since the Legislature clearly intended drainage ditches to be constructed as designed, and any changes during construction to be reflected in the design plans, the majority’s view of Minn.Stat. § 106.471, subd. 1 (1982) distorts the statutory plan.
There is a good, practical, common-sense reason for the court’s ruling in Taylor. The design ditch is the only record of the depth of county ditches kept by the county recorder’s office. It is the basis on which the viewers, appointed to determine to what extent property owners have been benefited or damaged, make their judgment and eventual assessment. The Minnesota Drainage Code, Chapter 106, makes no provision for reviewing the depth of a ditch after construction is completed. Rights are fixed in relation to the documents describing the design of the county ditch. Over the years the constructed depth is altered by accretion and erosion of the drainage ditch bed. The constructed depth, therefore, cannot be. used as a benchmark to determine the originally constructed depth for purposes of the repair statute.
Under the majority’s decision a number of problems will arise. If a contractor fails to construct a ditch in compliance with the design plans and the reviewing engineer fails to note that error, property owners who later discover the difference will be left without a suitable remedy. Although the landowners will have been assessed for benefits on the basis of the design plans, they will be forced to petition for an “improvement” in order to have the ditch dug according to plan.
The present case vividly illustrates the difficulties encountered in attempting to define a repair in the absence of adequate records. The ditch involved in the present proceeding was constructed at the turn of the century. At that time, the recording of ditches was made only in reference to the existing grade. Minn.Stat. § 7795 (1894). As a consequence, the engineers for the parties in this case had difficulty in agreeing upon the design depth of Ditch No. 9. While they did eventually agree upon the design depth, they were unable to agree on the depth of the ditch as “originally constructed”.
In 1917, the Legislature amended ?jthe ditch recording statute to require that records of design plans be made in reference to objective benchmarks. Act of April 23, 1917, ch. 441, § 5, 1917 Minn.Laws 692, 695. Thus, interpreting the definition of “repair” set forth at Minn.Stat. § 106.471, subd. 1 (1982) as permitting restoration of a ditch to its original design will virtually eliminate disputes over the permissible extent of a repair to a ditch established after 1917. Reading the legislative definition of “repair” as permitting restoration of a *276ditch only to its originally constructed condition, however, will not only upset the rights of property holders, but invite litigation as well.
The Legislature established a procedure designed to make repairing a ditch inexpensive and uncomplicated. The majority’s decision will surely frustrate that intent. Although design plans and specifications are recorded, no records are kept to show how a ditch was originally constructed. The extent of original construction, therefore, must be determined in order to establish the permissible limits of a ditch repair. As the present case illustrates, determining the extent of original construction may result in costly and protracted litigation. The unlucky farmer who seeks to repair a drainage ditch may soon realize that the cost of procuring expert testimony and legal counsel will make the ditch repair prohibitively expensive.
The overruling of Taylor at this time is particularly unfortunate. Drainage ditches fulfill a vital function in our rural areas. We have previously recognized that once a drainage ditch has been established and owners of the affected properties have been assessed for its construction, their rights in the ditch are vested constitutional rights. Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493, 196 N.W. 666 (1924). Our rural community is under substantial financial pressure at this time. Further increasing their operational costs cannot be justified. Taylor correctly held that restoration of a ditch to its original design is a “repair” under Minn.Stat. § 106.471, subd. 1 (1982). The;, majority’s decision is regrettable. I would affirm the trial court.