11-10-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r YETKA. Justice.Appellant City of Sauk Rapids appeals from a decision of the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court judgment, finding the city liable to respondent land- owner for damage to respondent s home caused by flooding of one of the city s storm sewer holding ponds allegedly due to the city’s negligence. We reverse wi^ in structions to enter judgment for the City of Sauk Rapids. Plaintiff-respondent, David Chabot, pur chased a home in February 1983 from Wil bert Landwehr. The house, built by Land- wehr in 1972. is located across the street from a natural ditch which functioned as a holding pond as part of defendant-appellant City of Sauk Rapids’ storm sewer drainage system. The city is drained by nine separate wa tersheds. The Pleasantview watershed, which ral "Sitch CHABOT V. CITY OF SAUK RAPIDS .Minn. 709Clu M 422 .S.Wja 7QS (.Ulaa. I9W)the contours of the land would appear to flow of surface water across ✓ known time in the past — — the water into a natural basing The city TSs iCiemplBtl W piusiirvt’The natural course of the flow of surface water. ’There was no evidence that the city had in any way diverted the flow of water from iu natural course. In 1972. when Landwehr applied for a permit to build his home, several dty offi cials expressed some concern over the p^ sibility of flooding. Eventually, the city planning commission granted a variance to Landwehr conditioned on steps being taken to maintain the natural waterway near the property. The house sits at one of the lowest points in the landscape. ’The footings of the house go right to the stteam bed. The residential lots surrounding the property are at a higher elevation. ’The eleyatior of the holding pond across the street is higher than the rear of Chabot’s property. Thus. direct the Chabot's property naturally. Mark Johnson, formerly c\ty enpneer, r viewed the er* re storm sewer system for the city in 197 j. He determined that the city possessed several drainage problems, including the holding pond across from Chabot’s house. As a result of Johnson’s initial assessment of the potential prob lems. the city council commissioned Barr Engineering to review all drainage areas of the city and recommend improvements for the entire city drainage system, including the Pleasantview watershed. The complet ed report was over 60 pages long and was intended to furnish a guide for the city to improve its drainage system as needed over an extended p>eriod. The Barr report identified a number of potential problem areas, including the hold ing pond near Chabot’s house. The report gave no specific warning of any flooding or damage to Chabot’s property. The holding pond was identified as important, but not necessarily as a first priority. The cost of the improvements recommended for just the Pleasantview watershed exceeded $600,000. The procedures required before the city can m^e capital improvements are compli cated and require a period of time to imple ment Johnson, the city engineer who com missioned the Barr study, testified that it was not economically possible to implement the recommendations within 1 year. In fact Johnson testified that an earlier at tempt to upgrade a different storm sewer system in the city met with unprecedented public opposition. By June 1983. the Barr report had not been implemented in the Pleasantview wa tershed. On June 25-26, 1983. during an extremely heavy rain storm, the holding pond overflowed. Chabot’s piX>perty was flooded due to the run-off water, which flowed over the street in its natural course towards the river. The excessive amoimt of w'ster caused extensive damage, eroding Chabot's front yard, exposing the b^ ment walls to the foundation, causing structural and interior damage to the