Blairstown, Iowa
Do you really want to live in Blairstown,
IA? You decide!
The Blairstown City Council
did WHAT???
"Just the facts, Maam, just the facts."
At the July 2008, Blairstown City
Council meeting, the
'Then City Council' gave approval to Dave Petersen to install a curb on city property, at his
expense. The request for the curb was to protect his retaining wall. (Why was
the curb extended 63 feet past the retaining wall so it would dump bunches of
runoff water 'into or near' an adjacent landowner? You decide!)
This was approved in approximately 10 minutes without requiring a permit,
without any ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’, without any type of investigation
into what problems this diversion of runoff water would cause, and without any
notice to (or input from) affected property owners. Was this legal? You decide!
From the "Iowa Diversion Law Manual":
- Highway authorities cannot
change surface water from the natural channel to the injury of adjacent land
owners. Openings must be placed in roadway embankments to permit surface
water to continue in natural paths.
- Prior to undertaking such an
action (water diversion), agencies should ascertain that minimal probability
for property damage would incur from a drainage diversion, even if all current
property owners are willing to sign a release if subsequent damages are
realized, assessment of responsibility to the road agency may still be awarded
by the courts.
- Public agencies should use
diligence in maintaining surface flow of water in natural channels, and any
turning of natural drainage patterns must avoid injury to adjacent property
owners.
- A landowner may not discharge
it on or close to a neighbor’s land, if it would increase the discharge
substantially, put the discharge in a different place from its natural flow,
or unnecessarily cause damage.
- Water from a dominant estate
must be allowed to flow in its natural course into a servient estate. The flow
may not be diverted by obstructions erected or caused by either estate holder.
- The owner of a dominant estate
may not divert surface water from one natural watercourse to another natural
watercourse on his or her land if the flow of water is greatly increased or is
of an unnatural volume and the waters ultimately flow upon a public highway at
a point where they would no naturally flow.
- The rights to use of a roadway
within the right-of-way belong to the public. These rights are not to be
impaired in favor of an individual even though the person's actions, such as
diverting the flow of drainage, does no damage to the highway.
Seems pretty clear? Now comes the request for the
'Then City Council' to correct this wrong. Will they do anything? You decide!
- It was asked at the City Council
meetings, starting in April and continuing through July, to have some
corrective action taken. The
'Then City Council' asked for suggestions, so a list of
suggestions were given to them that ranged from 'keeping grass mowed to
facilitate the movement of the runoff' to 'building a "water retention
basin"'. These were all but ignored by the
'Then City Council' saying 'the person who installed the
tile behind the landowners property did a bad job'.
- After three fruitless meetings
with the
'Then City Council', a Civil Engineer was contacted. His comments and expert
suggestions were:
- The first problem was the construction of the
retaining wall by Mr. Petersen. “You don’t construct that type of retaining wall
in a high runoff area like that”.
- If the reason for the curb was to protect the wall,
the curb should never have been constructed that far past the wall. He said
to ask “Give me one good reason why that curb couldn’t be cut back”.
- Since Mr. Petersen created the original problem
(the wall) and Mr. Petersen installed the curb, the cost to correct the
problem caused by the illegally diverted runoff water does not lie with the
adjacent landowner.
- Since the curb is constructed on city property with
the approval of the city, the water runoff problem is the city’s problem and
needs to be corrected by the city.
- Besides removing the entire curb, he sees two
solutions … cutting the curb back to the retaining wall, or building a ‘berm’
in the empty lot in order to bring the diverted runoff water back to its
original path.
- Did this do any good? You
decide!
- Their comments at the July,
2009, meeting included
- "The Engineers I know don't know anything!" (This is
how governing bodies should handle professional suggestion that they don't
agree with? You decide!)
- Mr. Petersen said that "your downspouts point toward my
empty lot". Let see now. Does it take a brain surgeon to figure out the
water from a downspout is nothing compared to the runoff coming down the road from
three directions. Ridiculous? You decide!
- Then they pull in a person whose reputation as a
'blowhard' is exceeded only by his reputation as a liar. Is this how City
Councils are to operate? Confuse the issue with BS and lies so you can avoid
a vote to correct something that was done illegally? You Decide! Or ask Jam E.!
- Another excuse to support their lack of corrective
action was "everybody has a water problem!". Even if this is true, is this a
reason to break the law, and then refuse to correct the problems that were
caused by these illegal actions? You decide!
- Now came the time at this July
meeting for the
'Then City Council' to vote on whether the Civil Engineer's
suggestion to 'cut back the curb to the retaining wall' should be initiated.
Did they? In effect, they voted to 'not vote' and to drop the 'illegal diversion of
runoff water' issue. Is this how corrective action should be carried out by a
Governing Body?
- Now comes the best part! In a
phone conversation with the
'Then Mayor'
on 6/11/2009, he was asked if Mr. Petersen had obtained a permit to put in the
curb. The 'Then
Mayor' answered with:
"No,
there was no permit. He just wanted to know if he could put in a curb at his
own –yeah, there’s no permit, nothing."
What?? How can this be?? Their own City Ordinance
states:
"135.09. No person shall dig, evacuate or in any manner disturb
any street, parking, or alley except in accordance with the following:
1. Permit required. No evacuation shall be commenced without first
obtaining a permit therefor. A written application shall be filed with the
City and shall contain the following:" (See complete Ordinance as pertaining
to this problem here)
- Is this a case of 'following Iowa law
and their own City Ordinance' being
superseded by 'small town buddy-buddy favoritism'? You Decide!
Blairstown,
Iowa
