Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Illinois ex rel. Drainage Commissioners

Background

A public Drainage District, through Drainage Commissioners, adopted a plan to enlarge and deepen Rob Roy Creek so about 2,000 acres of swamp and slough lands could be drained and farmed. A railroad company had long maintained a bridge with timbers and stones placed in the creek bed; removing those obstructions would destroy the bridge’s foundations and require building a new bridge.

Reasoning

The main question was who must pay for the work needed to carry out the drainage plan. The Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois court’s judgment. The Court held the railroad must remove the bridge, culvert, timbers, and stones it placed in the creek and may have to build and maintain a new bridge to meet the Commissioners’ requirements, at the railroad’s expense. The Court said the Drainage District must pay the costs that are purely for enlarging, deepening, or removing soil from the natural channel.

Real world impact

Practically, the railroad faces the cost of removing its own obstructions and reconstructing any crossing it keeps, while the public Drainage District covers the earth-moving needed to expand the natural channel. The state court will determine exact cost shares and enter orders to implement the plan.

Dissents or concurrances

Mr. Justice Holmes (concurring) emphasized that the public must pay for widening or deepening work even if material in the creek was lawfully placed. Mr. Justice Brewer (dissenting) argued it is unfair and possibly unconstitutional to force the railroad to bear rebuilding costs that largely benefit private landowners; he noted estimated project figures in the record (district costs about $20,000; old bridge value $8,000; new bridge about $13,000).