Douglas County Kaw Drainage District 1

These features would be constructed by Douglas County. The grounds on which the drainage district seeks an injunction are twofold. True, Okaw Drainage District is not (so far as appears) a landowner; but since U. does not contest its right to proceed on a nuisance theory, we can pretend it is.

• Douglas county law drainage district map
• Douglas county kaw drainage district 8
• Douglas county kaw drainage district 6
• Douglas county kaw drainage district 4

Douglas County Law Drainage District Map

The district presented no such evidence and indeed failed utterly to show an equitable entitlement to the injunction it sought. Casenote Constitutional Law – First Amendment – Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 111 2419 (1991), 69 U. 431, 433 (S. D. N. Y. Contracts--especially when sought to be enforced many years after they were drafted--do not always mean what they appear to say, the meaning of a written contract as of any other text being a function of context as well as of semantics. Upon termination (effective in 1987), U. stopped maintaining the ditch and the district took over responsibility for maintenance. Curtis Gervin- Operations & Maintenance Manager. Baskin-Robbins Franchised Shops LLC v. Livonia Ice Cream, Inc., 2007 U. LEXIS 86938 (E. Mich 2007). 1989); United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F. 2d 1256, 1262-63 (7th Cir. This is an action brought by Douglas county to restrain the Papillion Drainage District from digging drainage ditches across public roads in Douglas county. This Note addresses drainage district regulation under the Clean Water Act in the midst of a continued agricultural and environmental battle over water quality. By creating the grants to be provided later, some county businesses were given more time to apply and receive funding to help respond to the ongoing pandemic. Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., 2003 U. LEXIS 27358 (E. 2003).

Douglas County Kaw Drainage District 8

Naramore said that until recently, he understood that land ownership was a requirement for membership on the board, but he had not been unaware that members had to live in Douglas County. Prior to finalizing the spending plan last month, the commissioners reworked language in the economic recovery portion to make sure funds to certain umbrella organizations would be provided as new grants that county businesses could still apply for. The drainage district is responsible for maintaining a 14-mile stretch of the Kaskaskia River in the agricultural region of central Illinois. Lafarge Corporation v. Altech Environmental USA, 220 823 (E. 2002). Oakland County Bar Association. North Lawrence, on the north side of the Kaw, has a distinctive character all its own.

Douglas County Kaw Drainage District 6

"Eminent Domain – Environmental Contamination and Just Compensation, " Pipeline Magazine, Vol. Board member Arch Naramore said he was new to the three-person board and had had questions about the board's bidding process. The organization plans to provide grants based on the size of the business, which will be dictated by the amount of employees the business had from March 1 to the time of the application. At or within ten days after such hearing, the board of county commissioners shall enter an order allowing or denying such petition. See cases cited in Drainage District # 1 v. Village of Green Valley, supra, 69 at 334-35, 25 at 769, 387 N. 2d at 425. It is seeking instead an injunction against U.

Douglas County Kaw Drainage District 4

In order to protect the taxpayers' monies, a full financial audit is warranted. Natural Resources Environmental Protection Act – Parts 31, 41, 91, 301, 303, 307, and 309. "I brought up concerns about the fact that we weren't putting things out to bid, " he said. Research Department. But I do not view any of the photographs or any of the testimony as to be so clearly by a preponderance of the evidence to be in violation of that contract. " An injunction so much broader in scope than the injury sought to be prevented would, if granted, exhibit a lack of equity on its face, and this is reason enough for refusing to issue the injunction. 's claimed right to pump water into the Kaskaskia River upstream and take an equivalent amount out downstream, each riparian owner is entitled to make a reasonable use of the river, with what is "reasonable" depending on the balance between his own needs and those of the other riparian owners. The decision of the district court is affirmed insofar as it denies an injunction, but is otherwise vacated and remanded for further findings, consistent with this opinion, on the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract. The standard is the same, regardless: reasonableness. Being unable to determine from the judge's oral opinion what he thought the contract meant, or to reconstruct from the opinion the essential facts bearing on liability for breach of contract, we are compelled to remand the contract phase of the case for further findings.

The issue of injunctive relief might also stand differently if the district had sought a narrower injunction, one designed to limit rather than to eliminate U. Of course, en route to the alcohol plant, the water pumped into the river from U. The drainage district is responsible for the drainage of the farmlands in the district, and it is therefore the logical entity to represent the farmers who own these lands in a conflict with a riparian owner who owns no land in the district. The contract was approved by the Illinois state court in which the plaintiff filed this lawsuit, but the parties have not explored the possible bearing of this fact on the suit.