Kiwanis Club Foundation, Inc. of Lincoln v. Yost
1966 Neb. LEXIS 688, 139 N.W.2d 359, 179 Neb. 598 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a dam built for private convenience has no duty to maintain it for the benefit of upper riparian landowners who have come to rely on the artificial water level it creates. The dam owner may abandon their rights and remove the dam, returning the river to its natural state, as the construction does not create reciprocal rights in upstream proprietors based on prescription, dedication, or estoppel.
Facts:
- In 1887, a dam was first constructed on the Blue River, which was replaced in 1924 by the Nebraska Gas and Electric Company.
- The Kiwanis Club Foundation, Inc. (plaintiffs) and their predecessors own property approximately one mile upstream from the dam.
- For over 40 years, the plaintiffs operated a camp and recreation area on their property, making improvements in reliance on the higher water level maintained by the dam.
- The dam was used for power generation until 1960, at which point it was abandoned for that purpose.
- The defendants, who are the successors in interest to the original builders of the dam, began to damage and destroy the dam.
- The plaintiffs sought to prevent the destruction of the dam and compel its repair to maintain the water level they had long enjoyed.
Procedural Posture:
- Kiwanis Club Foundation, Inc. filed an action in the district court for an injunction to restrain the defendants from destroying a dam.
- The defendants filed a demurrer against the plaintiffs' petition.
- The district court sustained the defendants' demurrer.
- The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the action.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's dismissal of their action to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an upstream riparian landowner acquire a reciprocal right, through prescription, estoppel, or dedication, to compel the owner of a downstream dam to maintain the dam and the artificial water level it has created for over 40 years?
Opinions:
Majority - McCown, J.
No. An upstream riparian landowner does not acquire a right to compel a downstream dam owner to maintain an artificial water level. The court held that the construction and maintenance of a dam for private convenience does not create reciprocal rights in upstream proprietors based on prescription, dedication, or estoppel. The court rejected the minority view that an artificial condition can become a natural, permanent one that cannot be altered. Instead, it adopted the majority rule, emphasizing that an essential element for a prescriptive right—adverse use—is absent, as the upstream owners' enjoyment of the water level was not adverse to the dam owner. The very presence of a man-made dam provides notice to all parties that the water level is artificial and subject to change. Therefore, the owner of the dam is free to abandon their rights and remove the structure, returning the river to its natural state.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Nebraska's adherence to the majority rule regarding artificial water conditions, prioritizing traditional property rights over reliance interests. It clarifies that a dam owner's right to impound water does not create a corresponding, perpetual duty to maintain the resulting water level for the benefit of others. The ruling protects a property owner's right to abandon improvements on their land, even when such abandonment negatively affects neighboring properties that have benefited from the improvement for a long time. This precedent makes it difficult for landowners to claim rights based on long-term acquiescence to an artificial condition, reinforcing the need for express agreements or grants to secure such interests.
