When Government Drainage Becomes a Taking: Property Owner Prevails in Federal Court

Government agencies often have authority to build roads, maintain drainage systems, and manage public infrastructure. But that authority has constitutional limits. When public infrastructure physically invades private property or causes significant flooding, the government may be required to pay just compensation.

Attorney Dane Carey represented the property owner in Miner v. Ogemaw County Road Commission, a federal civil-rights and property-rights case involving a road-commission drainage culvert, repeated flooding, and the constitutional protection of private land.

The Dispute

The case involved property located along Sage Lake Road in Ogemaw County, Michigan. A drain culvert ran under the public road and discharged water toward the plaintiff’s property. The property owner contended that the culvert was partially located outside the public road right-of-way, physically occupied his property, and caused significant flooding of his land and home.

The property owner repeatedly blocked the culvert to prevent flooding. The road commission repeatedly unblocked it. The dispute eventually led to litigation involving federal takings, Michigan inverse condemnation, due process, and trespass claims.

The Property Owner’s Claims

The property owner alleged that the Ogemaw County Road Commission and its manager violated his rights by maintaining a culvert that physically occupied private property and diverted water onto his land without just compensation.

The claims included:

• Federal takings under the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
• Michigan inverse condemnation under Article 10, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution;
• Trespass based on physical entry and occupation of private property; and
• Due process claims relating to the defendants’ conduct.

The case presented an important question: when does public drainage infrastructure cross the line from permissible road maintenance into an unconstitutional taking?

The Court’s Decision

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in favor of the property owner on the federal takings claim, the Michigan takings claim, and the trespass claim.

The court held that the culvert’s physical occupation of private property, combined with flooding caused by the culvert, supported a constitutional takings claim. The court also rejected key defenses, including arguments based on a prescriptive drainage easement, the natural-flow doctrine, and governmental immunity.

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granted the property owner’s motion for summary judgment, declared that the defendants had violated the property owner’s constitutional rights by taking his property without just compensation, and enjoined the defendants from trespassing onto the property without a warrant, an exception to the warrant requirement, or further court order.

The court noted that damages and remaining issues would still need to be resolved, but the liability ruling was a significant victory for the property owner.

Why the Case Matters

Miner is important because it reinforces several principles that matter to Michigan property owners.

First, even a small physical occupation can matter. A government agency does not avoid constitutional limits simply because an encroachment is relatively small or connected to public infrastructure.

Second, flooding can support a takings claim. When government action causes repeated or foreseeable flooding that interferes with the use and enjoyment of private property, the owner may have a claim for just compensation.

Third, public road and drainage authorities are not above property boundaries. Road commissions and other governmental bodies may have broad responsibilities, but those responsibilities do not automatically create a right to occupy or damage private land.

Fourth, takings claims and trespass claims may overlap. A government’s physical invasion of private property can raise both constitutional and common-law issues.

The Broader Property-Rights Principle

Miner fits within a larger line of cases recognizing that private property rights remain protected even when the government is acting for a public purpose. The government may build roads, manage drainage, enforce taxes, and maintain infrastructure. But when it takes private property, occupies private land, or causes compensable damage, the Constitution requires just compensation.

That same principle appears in other property-rights cases, including tax-foreclosure surplus-equity cases. Whether the taking involves physical occupation, flooding, or retention of surplus value after foreclosure, the central rule is the same: the government may not take more than the law allows without paying for what it takes.

Carey Jaskowski PLC’s Property-Rights Work

Carey Jaskowski PLC represents property owners, businesses, and other clients in real estate, land use, water law, easement, road-access, riparian-rights, and constitutional property-rights disputes throughout Michigan.

Attorney Dane Carey’s work in Miner reflects the firm’s broader commitment to protecting private property rights against unlawful governmental interference.

One recent example is Kakalia Management, LLC v Otsego County Treasurer, where the Michigan Court of Appeals revived a property owner’s claim that the government kept value far beyond the tax debt owed after a tax foreclosure. Miner and Kakalia arrive at the same place from different directions. In one, the government physically occupied and flooded private land. In the other, it retained surplus equity after foreclosure. Either way, the Constitution requires just compensation when the government takes more than the law allows. Read more about the Kakalia decision here: Carey Jaskowski PLC Secures Appellate Win in Michigan Tax-Foreclosure Takings Case [link to other blog article].

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Anyone facing a property-rights, drainage, flooding, road-access, tax-foreclosure, or inverse-condemnation issue should consult legal counsel regarding the specific facts and deadlines involved.