dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that the Drainage Board’s assessment was not arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or otherwise not supported by substantial evidence. My colleagues’ opinion is premised upon the assumption that Crowd’s land was not benefitted by reconstructing this drain. I disagree.
Drainage law was enacted for the public good “to promote the health, comfort, and convenience of the public.” Zigler v. Menges, 121 Ind. 99, 22 N.E. 782, 783 *300(1889). Long ago our Supreme Court determined that the drainage laws were an appropriate exercise of the police powers of the state. Gifford Drainage Dist. v. Shroer, 145 Ind. 572, 44 N.E. 636 (1896). With this recognition, an extensive regulatory system was designed to establish a joint enterprise to solve the common enemy of surface water problems.
The Marshall County Drainage Board oversees the drainage system in Marshall County for the benefit of its citizens. With the aid of the county surveyor, the Drainage Board determines watersheds within the county. A watershed is an area of land from which all runoff water drains to a given point. Ind.Code § 36-9-27-2. Drains within a watershed are constructed, reconstructed, and maintained by the Drainage Board in order to avoid flooding, standing water, and marsh areas.
My colleagues, the trial court, and the Drainage Board all agree that Crowel’s property is in the watershed served by the reconstructed drain and his surface water empties into the drain in question. On its journey to the drain, Crowel’s water travels through his neighbors’ properties causing significant flooding especially when the drain is not working. Tr. p. 25. In my opinion, the fact that Crowel’s water drains into the reconstructed drain, in and of itself, is enough to show that Crowel’s property benefits from the reconstructed drain. It matters not that his water first travels through his neighbors’ lower-lying properties before it finds its way into the drain. Crowel’s water drains into the reconstructed drain; thus, his property benefits. Culbertson v. Knight supports this conclusion when stating that a land is ben-efitted “whether the drain passes through the land or not, in so far as it affords an outlet for the drainage of the land.” 152 Ind. 121, 52 N.E. 700, 701 (1899). Broadly interpreting benefits in this matter is consistent with the policy of drainage law to establish an enterprise against the common enemy of standing water.
Further, “it is not necessary that the benefits be direct and immediate to justify an assessment. Future possibilities, if any, as well as collateral or indirect benefits, may be considered.” Hubenthal v. Crain, 239 Ind. 646, 159 N.E.2d 850, 853 (1959) (citing 10 I.L.E. Ditches and Drains). While it is true that Crowel has a right to the natural drainage of his land under Indiana’s common law “common enemy doctrine” of surface water diversion, it is also true that Crowel’s neighbors have a right under the “common enemy doctrine” to dam water or to change the grade of their land to cause water to back up on Crowel’s property. Thus, Crowel’s neighbors have the right to engage in a water war to alleviate the flooding problems of their own property. The avoidance of a future water war with his neighbors is also a benefit, albeit an indirect one, to Crow-el’s land.
The majority correctly notes that in Culbertson, the higher-level landowner collected his surface water in a ditch before casting it on his lower-level neighbors’ properties. Because Culbertson involved the collection of water by artificial means, the majority distinguishes this case from Culbertson. While this distinction surely exists, I do not believe that it makes a difference. Rather, I believe that the majority’s opinion changes drainage law as it has been applied for a very long time, will promote water wars between neighbors, and undermines the legislative intent of resolving water problems by a common enterprise.
Attorney James Clevenger, Counsel for the Drainage Board, summarized the problem well at the hearing before the trial court. Clevenger argued:
*301It is not uncommon — we run into this all the time at Drainage Board hearings. Folks that are on the higher ground in the watershed their — their water naturally seeks lower ground. It gets away, so it’s like well why am I paying to have this tile reconstructed? Well, because where it goes is where it’s not supposed to go. It goes on these poor other people’s property, so, I mean, we can have these people damming up the edge of their property so it doesn’t get— leave, and then you have that particular problem. We decided long ago that that’s not the proper way to do these things. The proper way is if you’re getting water in your watershed you should pay your fair share to make sure that it is taken care of — uh—in a — in a proper way and doesn’t burden the other landowners in the watershed.
Tr. p. 17-18.
For all of the reasons above, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court.