Opinion
No. 2-070 / 01-0436.
Filed May 31, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pocahontas County, Joel E. Swanson, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their request for permanent injunctive relief. AFFIRMED.
Warren Bush, Wall Lake, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, David Sheridan and Michael Smith, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their request for permanent injunctive relief. They contend the court erred in refusing to require the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to remove the water control structure it erected on a public wetland adjoining plaintiffs' property because the structure blocks the plaintiffs' drainage. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings . Plaintiffs are co-owners of a 160-acre farm that is adjacent to the Shimon Marsh Wildlife Area. The Shimon Marsh is currently owned by the DNR. The natural outlet for the water from the Schmitz farm is across the Shimon Marsh.
Prior to the DNR's acquisition of the marsh, Leo Shimon owned the land. Shimon had regulated water levels in the marsh by constructing two dams operated by a stop log mechanism. An agricultural tile system drained through a tile under the county road bordering the east boundary of the Schmitz farm. There was an ongoing dispute between the Schmitz family and Shimon regarding the adequacy of the drainage.
In 1985, the DNR purchased the Shimon Marsh. Because the dams Shimon built were in poor repair, the DNR replaced them with a new dike and water control structure. Three alternatives were studied to resolve problems with the Schmitz tile outlet. It was recommended that a new tile outlet be installed. The DNR intended to replace the ten-inch diameter tile on the Schmitz property with a twelve-inch diameter tile. However, Larry Schmitz wanted a larger tile and agreed to pay the extra cost of a fourteen-inch diameter tile. The fourteen-inch tile was installed in September 1989.
Shortly after the construction of the new tile outlet for the Schmitz farm, Larry Schmitz began complaining it did not work. His complaints were investigated, and between 1990 and 1992, nothing was observed indicating an obstruction in the tile. Larry Schmitz again complained that his tile was not working in March 1993. It was then discovered that tree roots were plugging the tile near its outlet. The roots were removed by the DNR.
Despite the repair, Larry Schmitz continued to complain. These complaints were brought before an administrative law judge in a contested case concerning the issuance of a permit for the new dike. After hearing expert testimony, the judge concluded the new fourteen-inch tile line provided much better drainage than the old ten-inch line, and a permit was issued.
In the summer of 1997, Larry Schmitz again complained that the tile was not working properly. Exploratory excavations did not detect a problem. However, in April 1999 another obstruction was discovered. Tree roots were removed from eight joints between tile sections and drainage resumed.
Plaintiffs brought an action seeking a permanent injunction that would direct the DNR to remove the water control structure and dike from Shimon Marsh. The district court denied the request and plaintiffs appeal. We review their claims de novo. Blumenthal Inv. Trusts v. City of West Des Moines, 636 N.W.2d 255, 260 (Iowa 2001).
II. Injunction . Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that is granted with caution and only when required to avoid irreparable damage. Skow v. Goforth, 618 N.W.2d 275, 277-78 (Iowa 2000). A party seeking an injunction must establish (1) an invasion or threatened invasion of a right, (2) substantial injury or damages will result unless an injunction is granted, and (3) no adequate legal remedy is available. Id. at 278.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no other legal remedy is available, and that any available remedy is inadequate to correct the invasion of their rights. Past problems with the drainage have been remedied. The trial court correctly found the plaintiffs failed to prove removal of the water control structures in the Shimon Marsh would improve drainage on the plaintiffs' land. Iowa Code chapter 669 (2001) allows plaintiffs to recover damages for any negligent actions by the State. Although plaintiffs argue that use of this remedy would require them to engage in a multiplicity of lawsuits, we note only two blockages have been discovered in the tile in the ten years since it was installed. Because plaintiffs have failed to prove a current or threatened invasion of a right, and another legal remedy is available to the plaintiffs, we affirm the district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for permanent injunction.
AFFIRMED.