Court Opinion

ID: 9658389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:57:57.69372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:54.532971
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(dissenting). As I view the facts, only an easement was acquired because: (1) The express terms of the order in the condemnation suit provide the United States of America “is vested with a perpetual easement for the location, construction, maintenance, operation and patrol of a right-of-way for a drainage ditch outlet,” and (2) that interest is all that was reasonably necessary for the drainage ditch. As long as the ditch remained, the government could control the “right-of-way.” The problem here is created because the government changed the ditch into a conduit and created a surface which was usable for purposes other than that within the scope of the easement. This right to use the surface belongs to the fee owner of the land subject to the easement. Easements are not to be enlarged beyond their purpose. See Stauffacher v. Sun Prairie (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 442, 168 N. W. 2d 587, where this court held an easement for a drainage ditch did not include a storm sewer.