civil law rule in South Dakota

1986However, the principles set forth in Thompson and its progeny qualify the civil law rule inasmuch as it is impermissible for a dominant landowner to collect surface waters, and then cast them upon the servient estate in “unusual or unnatural quantities.” Thompson , 39 S.D. at 492 , 165 N.W. at 14 ; Johnson, 71 S.D. at 158 ; 22 N.W.2d at 739 ; Gross, 361 N.W.2d at 267 .

1986However, the principles set forth in Thompson and its progeny qualify the civil law rule inasmuch as it is impermissible for a dominant landowner to collect surface waters, and then cast them upon the servient estate in “unusual or unnatural quantities.” Thompson , 39 S.D. at 492 , 165 N.W. at 14 ; Johnson, 71 S.D. at 158 ; 22 N.W.2d at 739 ; Gross, 361 N.W.2d at 267 .

2020The civil law rule burdens a downstream rural landowner “with an easement under which the dominant, or upper property owner may reasonably discharge surface water over the servient estate through natural watercourses.” Knodel v. Kassel Twp., 1998 S.D. 73 , ¶ 10, 581 N.W.2d 504, 507 (emphasis added).

2019The McAreaveys and the County respond that the McAreaveys' drain tile falls within the purview of the civil law rule. [¶ 18.] "For rural surface water drainage, South Dakota follows the civil law rule," Zwart v. Penning , 2018 S.D. 40 , ¶ 10, 912 N.W.2d 833 , 837 (quoting Surat Farms , 2017 S.D. 52 , ¶ 15, 901 N.W.2d at 370 ), which is codified at SDCL 46A-10A-70. 1 Further, SDCL 46A-10A-20, 2 which *270 vests control of rural drainage management with local commissions or boards, contains the elements of the civil law rule. [¶ 19.] "The civil law rule burdens the owner of agricultural property

2020The Board’s decisions were based upon factual investigations and legal conclusions from existing law, that adjudicated the rights and liabilities of these parties concerning the disputed drainage systems.8 See Surat Farms, 2017 S.D. 52 , ¶ 11, 901 N.W.2d 365, 369 (applying de novo review to a county board’s consideration, under the civil law rule, whether the drainage system of a downstream landowner unreasonably interfered with the drainage rights of an upstream landowner). [¶47.] The majority opinion suggests that county drainage permit decisions are not quasi-judicial because courts do not

2019The McAreaveys and the County respond that the McAreaveys' drain tile falls within the purview of the civil law rule. [¶ 18.] "For rural surface water drainage, South Dakota follows the civil law rule," Zwart v. Penning , 2018 S.D. 40 , ¶ 10, 912 N.W.2d 833 , 837 (quoting Surat Farms , 2017 S.D. 52 , ¶ 15, 901 N.W.2d at 370 ), which is codified at SDCL 46A-10A-70. 1 Further, SDCL 46A-10A-20, 2 which *270 vests control of rural drainage management with local commissions or boards, contains the elements of the civil law rule. [¶ 19.] "The civil law rule burdens the owner of agricultural property

2019Id. (quoting Magner v. Brinkman , 2016 S.D. 50 , ¶ 15, 883 N.W.2d 74 , 81 ). 3 Overall, "the civil law rule is conditioned upon the fact that the drainage [of the dominant estate] must be accomplished without unreasonable injury to the servient estate." Winterton v. Elverson , 389 N.W.2d 633 , 635 (S.D. 1986). [¶ 20.] "Additionally, 'it is impermissible for a dominant landowner to collect surface waters, and then cast them upon the servient estate in unusual or unnatural quantities.' " Rumpza v. Zubke , 2017 S.D. 49 , ¶ 12, 900 N.W.2d 601 , 605-06 (quoting Winterton , 389 N.W.2d at 635 ).

2019Id. (quoting Magner v. Brinkman , 2016 S.D. 50 , ¶ 15, 883 N.W.2d 74 , 81 ). 3 Overall, "the civil law rule is conditioned upon the fact that the drainage [of the dominant estate] must be accomplished without unreasonable injury to the servient estate." Winterton v. Elverson , 389 N.W.2d 633 , 635 (S.D. 1986). [¶ 20.] "Additionally, 'it is impermissible for a dominant landowner to collect surface waters, and then cast them upon the servient estate in unusual or unnatural quantities.' " Rumpza v. Zubke , 2017 S.D. 49 , ¶ 12, 900 N.W.2d 601 , 605-06 (quoting Winterton , 389 N.W.2d at 635 ).

1971Although the court did not consider it necessary to adopt a modified urban rule in Young v. Huffman, 77 S.D. 254 , 90 N.W.2d 401 , it did point out that “In some jurisdictions which ordinarily follow the civil law rule, it is recognized that in the case of urban property changes and alterations in the surface are essential to the enjoyment of the property and that the owner may make changes in the surface of a city or town lot essential to its enjoyment regardless of the effect on the flow of surface waters provided he has not been negligent. 93 C.

1971Although the court did not consider it necessary to adopt a modified urban rule in Young v. Huffman, 77 S.D. 254 , 90 N.W.2d 401 , it did point out that “In some jurisdictions which ordinarily follow the civil law rule, it is recognized that in the case of urban property changes and alterations in the surface are essential to the enjoyment of the property and that the owner may make changes in the surface of a city or town lot essential to its enjoyment regardless of the effect on the flow of surface waters provided he has not been negligent. 93 C.

2020The courts in this state have applied the civil law rule (continued . . .) -21- #28761 the Board to determine whether the installation of the drain tile was reasonable, and whether the neighboring landowner would be unreasonably harmed by the installation of the tile. [¶45.] Our test from Troy Township leads to the conclusion that the Board’s decisions on the two drainage permit applications were quasi-judicial: Administrative action is quasi-judicial if it investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist rather th

2020The courts in this state have applied the civil law rule (continued . . .) -21- #28761 the Board to determine whether the installation of the drain tile was reasonable, and whether the neighboring landowner would be unreasonably harmed by the installation of the tile. [¶45.] Our test from Troy Township leads to the conclusion that the Board’s decisions on the two drainage permit applications were quasi-judicial: Administrative action is quasi-judicial if it investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist rather th

2004Mulder v. Tague, 85 S.D. 544, 552 , 186 N.W.2d 884, 888 (1971) (stating “[a]s any change in grade, level, or topography might affect natural drainage, the civil law rule cannot reasonably be strictly applied in urban areas”).

2004Mulder v. Tague, 85 S.D. 544, 552 , 186 N.W.2d 884, 888 (1971) (stating “[a]s any change in grade, level, or topography might affect natural drainage, the civil law rule cannot reasonably be strictly applied in urban areas”).

1999West Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington County, 1996 SD 70, ¶ 6 , 549 N.W.2d 683, 685 (1996). *510 Engelhart v. Kramer, 1997 SD 124, ¶ 8 , 570 N.W.2d 550, 552 (citation omitted). [¶ 10.] For rural surface water drainage, South Dakota follows the civil law rule.

1999West Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington County, 1996 SD 70, ¶ 6 , 549 N.W.2d 683, 685 (1996). *510 Engelhart v. Kramer, 1997 SD 124, ¶ 8 , 570 N.W.2d 550, 552 (citation omitted). [¶ 10.] For rural surface water drainage, South Dakota follows the civil law rule.

1999West Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington County, 1996 SD 70, ¶ 6 , 549 N.W.2d 683, 685 (1996). *510 Engelhart v. Kramer, 1997 SD 124, ¶ 8 , 570 N.W.2d 550, 552 (citation omitted). [¶ 10.] For rural surface water drainage, South Dakota follows the civil law rule.

1999West Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington County, 1996 SD 70, ¶ 6 , 549 N.W.2d 683, 685 (1996). *510 Engelhart v. Kramer, 1997 SD 124, ¶ 8 , 570 N.W.2d 550, 552 (citation omitted). [¶ 10.] For rural surface water drainage, South Dakota follows the civil law rule.