Court Opinion

ID: 9616185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:44:02.788348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:55.892521
License: Public Domain

Given, Judge,
dissenting:
The controlling issue in this cause is not complicated.. It relates to the right of defendants, Jarrells, to divert certain waters from a watercourse flowing from land of plaintiff, after such waters enter upon defendants’ land. The waters may be surface waters, flood waters or waters flowing through a natural stream or watercourse. The applicable principles of law are fully settled by the' *589decisions' of this and other Courts. The parties hereto are apparently in agreement as to such principles. Factual questions alone are the source of the disagreement.
Plaintiff owns a large farm bordering on the Great Ka-nawha River. A large part of the farm consists of bottom land, and a large part of the bottom land is situated between the state highway and the river. Defendants own a large farm adjoining that of plaintiff and lying'downstream therefrom. The farms have a common property line at all points involved in this controversy. Pond Branch flows somewhat parallel with the property line and directly toward the river until it reaches point “E”. Beginning at “E” on Pond Branch and extending across the property of plaintiff to Point “F”, near the property line, is a watercourse over which this controversy exists. The elevation at point “E” on the map filed with the majority opinion is 1.8 feet higher than the elevation at point “F”. Plaintiff contends that this “E-F” course is a natural watercourse, and that the course formerly continued through a culvert or drain under the farm lane and on through defendants’ land. Defendants contend that the ditch is not a natural watercourse and exists only on plaintiff’s land for plaintiff’s sole benefit.
In 1948 defendants elevated the farm lane road, existing upon their own property, near the property line, and running parallel with that line, and it is admitted that no opening was provided under the lane for the passage of water onto defendants’ land from the “E-F” course. At that time defendants also constructed a ditch, entirely upon their own property, between the lane and the property of plaintiff, from point “F” to point “G”. The distance from point “F” to point “G” is 288 feet, and the elevation at point “F” is .57 of a foot higher than the elevation at point “G”; and the ditch is at least two feet in width and eight inches in depth, as pointed out in the majority opinion. Defendants contend that this ditch efficiently drains from plaintiff’s land all waters which formerly flowed, or could have flowed, onto defendants’ land through the “E-F” watercourse. Plaintiff contends *590just the opposite. On this point the testimony is, I think, in sharp conflict. The trial court, believing that a finding as to that point was unnecessary to a decision of the matter, made no finding in relation thereto. The majority opinion, however, holds that the clear preponderance of the evidence establishes that the “E-F” course is a natural watercourse. As to that finding, I would be inclined to agree with the majority opinion, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Town of Paden City v. Felton, 136 W. Va. 127, 66 S. E. 2d 280. I agree, however, with the trial court, that no finding on that point was called for.
The decree of the trial court is reversed by the majority for the sole reason that the decree was “based upon an inapplicable principle of law.” It is my view that the final decree of the trial court was not based upon an inapplicable principle of law, but, if so, the principle of law that should be applied in the disposition of this cause requires that the decree of the trial court be not disturbed because plainly right. “On appeal, error prejudicial to the appellant must affirmatively appear, or the decree will be affirmed.” Point 4, syllabus, Webb v. Bailey, 41 W. Va. 463, 23 S. E. 644; Pickens v. O’Hara, 120 W. Va. 751, 200 S. E. 746; Pickens v. Wisman, 106 W. Va. 183, 145 S.E. 177; Nease v. Capehart, 15 W. Va. 299.
All agree that a down-stream landowner may divert waters flowing upon his lands from the lands of an upstream owner. The rule is clearly recognized by the majority opinion. Of course, such diversion or interference with the natural flow of water through a natural watercourse must not cause damage to the up-stream owner. In the diversion of a natural watercourse, however, no greater duty can be imposed upon the down-stream owner than existed immediately before the diversion. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to demand no greater flow of water from his land than the capacity of the “E-F” course prior to its obstruction. The capacity of that course was definitely limited by the capacity of the drain existing under the road for almost fifty years. “* * * Where there *591are two channels an owner cannot enlarge one to the detriment of owners on the other.” 56 Am. Jur., Waters, Section 14. A down-stream landowner has a right to have the waters pass through his land in their natural flow, not in an enlarged flow or in a different or swifter flow. See Roberts v. Martin, 72 W. Va. 92, 77 S. E. 535; Cline v. Railway Co., 69 W. Va. 436, 71 S. E. 705; Hargreaves v. Kimberly, 26 W. Va. 787, 57 Am. Rep. 121; 56 Am. Jur., Waters, Section 17.
Applying these principles to the instant proceeding, and assuming that the “E-F” course is a natural one, as the majority holds, the defendants have the absolute right to divert the waters flowing through the same, after the waters enter upon their land, in any direction over their land, and in any manner, so long as the capacity of the course to which the waters are diverted is of equal or greater capacity, and efficiency, as the “E-F” course. There is no question as to the existence of the ditch from “F” to “G”. There is no question that waters flow through the ditch. There is no question that defendants constructed the ditch entirely upon their own land. There is no question that the outlet of the ditch is into Pond Branch at “G”, on defendants’ land. The majority admits that the “evidence is conflicting” as to the capacity of the “F-G” ditch, but gives controlling weight to certain photographs introduced in evidence by plaintiff.
The photographs, in my opinion, should be given little, if any, weight. They were taken in February, a time of the year when common knowledge teaches us that low-lying lands, as these undoubtedly are, are often inundated, or dotted with pools of water' from floods, rains or snow during that time of the year. An examination of the photographs will disclose nothing definite or controlling. Actually they appear to establish high land between the “E-F” ditch and the pools of water shown upon the photographs. They also appear to show the natural streams full of water. If at any time there is as much as .57 of a foot of water at “G” in Pond Branch, or more than 1.8 feet of water at point “E” in Pbnd Branch, the land at *592the elevation at point “F” would be covered with back waters from Pond Branch, making drainage of the area impossible in any circumstance, since defendants’ adjoining land is at a level, according to plaintiff’s evidence, or only at a slightly higher elevation, according to defendants’ evidence, making drainage of the area around “F” impossible. If less than seven inches of water in Pond Branch at “G”, or less than 1.8 feet of water in Pond Branch at “E”, all waters that would have entered the “E-F” course, before the obstruction at “F”, would naturally drain back into Pond Branch, without any ditch. The evidence shows that Pond Branch drains a comparatively large area, and that it is very “sluggish” as it creeps through the bottom- land. If, as the photographs appear to show, the elevation of some of plaintiff’s land in the near vicinity of “F” is lower than the top of the banks of the “E-F” course, waters from rains, snows, floods or seepage would naturally remain thereon, for some time at least. In these circumstances, I can see no possible basis for giving controlling weight to the photographic evidence.
If, however, we give the photographs the weight usually accorded such evidence, facts remain undisputed by plaintiff which establish that the trial court was justified in finding that the ditch from “F” to “G” was of more than sufficient capacity to carry the waters alleged to have been previously carried by the “E-F” course. Until about 1935 the drain under the lane road was a one foot square box, built like a “rabbit box”, as pointed out by the majority. About that year a round metal corrugated drain was substituted for the box. One witness for plaintiff testified that the metal drain was “ten or twelve inches in diameter”. No witness estimated the size of the metal drain to be larger. Another witness testified that the metal drain was about “eight inches galvanized iron pipe”. If twelve inches in diameter, it was of less capacity than the wooden drain. As the majority points out, the ditch from “F” to “G” was not less than eight inches deep and two feet wide, a larger square inch capacity than the wooden drain. No witness testified to *593the effect that either the box or metal drain was insufficient to carry all waters under the roadway, other than flood waters. If flood waters were present, drainage would be impossible, for the reason that all surrounding land, 'including that of defendants, near “F” is low or swampy land. See Taylor v. Railway Co., 84 W. Va. 442, 100 S. E. 218, 7 ALR 112. The fall of the entire “F-G” course is .57 of a foot. The fall from “E” to “F” is 1.8 feet. The distance from “E” to “F” is not shown by the record, but the map filed as an exhibit indicates it to be probably twice the distance of 288 feet, so that the difference in the fall of the two courses is of little significance. The additional inch capacity of the “F-G” ditch would more than compensate for any such difference.
Other facts supporting the finding of the trial chancellor are almost as conclusive. Evidence of three witnesses testifying on behalf of defendants relates to' measurements taken by them for the purpose of establishing a comparative elevation of plaintiff’s and défendants’ land near point “F”. The taking of these -measurements is not disputed. They show the land of defendants, at the lower side of the lane, to be three and one-half inches higher than plaintiff’s land just opposite point “F”. Thus it would seem that with no obstruction of the “E-F” course by the elevated road, there would necessarily be three and one-half inches of water at “F” which would flow over the low land along the “F-G” course to “G” without any ditch. The width of such low land is not disclosed, but of necessity it is at least two feet wide, the width of the “F-G” ditch, which fully supports defendants’ contention that the box drain and the metal drain were maintained under the lane road near point “F” for the sole purpose of protecting the road of defendants. At any rate, any water in excess of the capacity -of the box or metal drain would flow along the low land, now followed by the “F-G” ditch, to Pond Branch at “G” on defendants’ land.
There is further strong evidence supporting the finding of the trial chancellor. Daniel R. Jarrell was asked: *594“Now you would say, or you did say, that the ditch from ‘F’ to ‘G’ would carry and does carry the water that runs, from ‘E’ to ‘F’?”, and he answered, “Yes, sir.” He was also asked: “Now I want you to compare the amount of water that is the swamp on the McCausland farm in and around ‘F’ and in this same section near ‘F’ now, as to the time prior to the construction of this ditch through there. Is it better drained, better condition now so far as being wet and swamp is concerned?” His answer was, “100% better.” He was also asked: “Then now it is adequate-drainage in there?” He answered: “Yes, sir.” George Love was asked: “I want to ask you further if there was any water in the drain, ‘E’ to ‘F’ which drains into ‘F’ to‘G’ if the drain ‘F’ to ‘G’ would be adequate to take care of it, drain it out?” He answered: “Well, sir, I would think so.” He was further asked: “What would you say as to the drainage, is it better drained now then it was-when you first lived on that farm?” He answered: “Yes, it is better drained.” Grant Stanley, who had known the-property for at least thirty years, testified as follows: “Q. I want to ask you to state if you observed whether or not there was water, or if water would get in the ditch from ‘E’ to ‘F’ would it flow out and down through the-ditch ‘F’ to ‘G’? A. It would. Q. Now, Mr. Stanley, have you' observed over this period of thirty years and what you have seen there this morning, what would you say as to whether or not the McCausland land in the vicinity of ‘E’ and ‘F’ is better drained now or worse drained now, as you have observed? A. It is very much better-drained. He has a drain now and before he — well there-wasn’t any.”
Other evidence and necessary inferences arising therefrom could be pointed out in support of the trial chancellor’s finding, but I deem it unnecessary to do so. The-facts pointed out, I believe, not only very substantially-support that finding, but are so convincing that no other-finding should have been made.
But the majority opinion holds that the only finding of' the trial chancellor was that the “E-F” ditch was suf*595ficient to drain surface waters from the land of plaintiff, and that he made no finding to the effect that the “F-G” ditch is sufficient to carry the waters formerly flowing through the “E-F” course. I do not so view the finding of the trial chancellor. True, he says in his opinion that the “F-G” ditch “is ample to carry the surface water on the east side of the farm lane.” But in the very next sentence he opines that “It (the “F-G” ditch) has sufficient fall and if kept open will suffice for every reasonable purpose.” As before indicated, practically all of the material evidence of both plaintiff and defendants related to the nature of the course from “E” to “F”; whether it was a natural watercourse or whether it carried only surface waters; and whether the “F-G” ditch was sufficient to carry the same waters. Clearly, if the trial chancellor had intended to limit his holding to the capacity of the ditch .to carry only surface waters, he would necessarily have had to make a finding as to the character of the “E-F” course, for only after such a finding could he s'ay whether the waters carried by the “E-F” course were surface waters or waters flowing through a natural watercourse. Yet he expressly held that “it is not necessary to decide whether the drain in question is natural or artificial or whether the plaintiff has acquired a prescriptive right to flow water upon defendants’ land.” To say that the learned trial chancellor of long experience limited his findings to the sufficiency of the “F-G” ditch to carry surface waters only, I would have to believe that he ignored the real issue in the cause, and practically all of the material evidence and the contentions of both plaintiff and defendants. That I can not do. I think it -clear that the effect of his holding is that the “F-G” ditch is sufficient to carry all waters formerly flowing through the “E-F” watercourse, whether the waters' be surface waters or not, “sufficient for every reasonable-purpose.”
Some contention is made to the effect that the trial' chancellor reached his conclusion as to the facts of the-cause by applying an erroneous principle of law. In his opinion he discusses the rule relating to the balancing of' *596equities or conveniences. Of course, that rule should not be applied so as to destroy clearly established rights or to alter or change the meaning of written agreements. Are any such matters here involved? It is not necessary to decide whether the rule is applicable in the circumstances of this cause. The actual finding quoted above, and also in the majority opinion, was that the “F-G” ditch was sufficient to carry a certain quantity of water. By no process of reasoning can equities or inequities control or affect the quantity of water a ditch will carry. Clearly the trial chancellor did not disregard the evidence of the parties relating to the capacity or sufficiency of the “F-G” ditch to carry all waters formerly flowing through the “E-F” ditch. He reached the conclusion indicated by applying the evidence, and not by applying an inapplicable principle of law. He discussed the evidence fully in his opinion and showed its relation and application to the issue of fact to be determined, and determined the issue of fact in accordance with his views of that evidence. No more could be required. His discussion of an' inapplicable principle of law, assuming it to be such, should in no circumstance be made a basis for disturbing his finding, clearly based upon the evidence. There is involved in the instant cause, however, another principle of law to be discussed later, to which the rule relating to balancing of equities, referred to, probably would have application.
In so far as I .can find, all the authorities agree that a down-stream landowner may change or divert a natural watercourse upon his own land in any direction and in any manner, so long as he causes no injury to an upstream owner. The majority opinion recognizes the rule, therefore I need not cite or discuss the authorities. The evidence of all the witnesses, including that of plaintiff, shows that the “F-G” ditch is entirely upon lands of defendants. The majority opinion so shows, although the map would appear to show that the “F-G” ditch is upon lands of plaintiff. Applying the rule just referred to, defendants should be permitted to divert the water flowing upon their lands from the “E-F” course at any point, or in any manner, on their own lands, so long as no injury *597is done plaintiff. If a new way or course is provided, of equal or greater capacity than the old course which existed prior to the obstruction, no complaint as to the injury may be heard. The majority reverses the finding of the trial chancellor and makes its own finding to the effect that the “F-G” ditch, as it now exists, is not sufficient for the purposes required. While I believe that action clearly unjustified, it may, for argument, be admitted to be correct in an attempt to make my views clear as to the character of the mandatory relief which should be granted plaintiff.
The majority requires that defendants install “a culvert in and under the farm lane near the point F of sufficient capacity to dispose of the flow of the stream in its natural course, * * I believe I am justified in thinking that this means “of sufficient capacity” to carry as much water as the one foot square box which existed from 1901 to 1935, or the metal drain of “10 or 12 inches” diameter which existed from 1935 to the time of the institution of this suit. The plaintiff asks no greater right. When asked what his complaint was, he testified: “I want this outlet over here under the lot like I always had.” As before pointed out, no witness testified that the metal drain was more than twelve inches in diameter. From these facts, based on plaintiff’s own evidence, we can determine mathematically that the square inch capacity of the ditch is much larger than that of the box or metal drain. No other factor need be considered in deciding the comparative capacity of the drains with that of the “F-G” ditch, except the degree of fall of that ditch with the degree of fall of the “E-F” course. As before pointed out, the fall from “F” to “G” is only slightly less than the fall from “E” to “F”. Of a certainty the slight difference could be compensated by widening the “F-G” ditch, or possibly by moving the outlet of that ditch farther down Pond Branch. There is not one word of evidence in the record indicating that it would be impossible for defendants to so provide for the removal from plaintiff’s land of all waters assumed to have formerly flowed through the drains. To deny them the right to do so, and to require them to con*598struct or place the drain at its exact previous location, amounts to more than a refusal to apply the rule relating to “balancing of equities”. It is the refusal to accord defendants the right to divert the watercourse, after it enters their own land, at any point they may desire so as to do no injury to plaintiff. That this could be done seems beyond question. Why would not an enlargement of the ditch have that effect? Why would not a twelve inch metal or tile drain from “F” to “G” be sufficient, or why could the drain not be placed at some other point under the lane? To require the diversion to be made at the exact location of the prior drain and to be made in a certain manner may, and it probably does, deny defendants the right to reclaim or use certain areas of their own land farther down stream. I think they should not be denied that right.
Being of the views indicated, I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the action of the trial court. If mandatory relief is to be granted, I would restrict such relief so as to recognize the right of defendants to divert the watercourse at any point east or west of the lane, if that can be done without damage to plaintiff. I am authorized to say that Judge Lovins concurs in these views, except that he is of the opinion that the evidence shows that the watercourse from “E” to “F” is not a natural one, but is a series of ponds of surface water.