War Room

“Good morning, Your Honor. Jason Ballantyne, plaintiff, appearing in pro per. I live at 6385 Seymour Road with my family.

This motion is about one culvert and one choice. The county's culvert takes the stormwater from the west side of Seymour Road and discharges it onto private land on the east side — my neighbors' yards and mine. It crosses four properties, floods them for months at a time, and is then pumped back into the county's own ditch at the end. The county's current project makes it worse: they set the culvert lower, they didn't restore the west ditch, and they removed the culvert that let water continue down the west side.

All that's left of this project is the last layer of asphalt and the paint. Once that goes down, this defect is sealed under a brand-new road, and fixing it means tearing that road up. I'm not asking Your Honor to stop the project. I'm asking for a pause on just the final surface and the drainage items on our stretch, and an order that the drainage be reviewed and corrected first. And Your Honor, the fix already exists on paper: the project's own contractor, Nashville Construction, submitted change orders to restore the west ditch, reinstall the culvert they removed, and ditch the east side so the water stays with the road. The Road Commission denied them. The contractor asked permission to fix this — and the Road Commission said no.”

Michigan's rule since 1887: no one — including a road commission — may collect surface water and discharge it, concentrated, onto someone else's land in greater volume and velocity. Gregory v Bush (1887); applied to a government drainage project in Wiggins v City of Burton (2011), quoting Herro (a county road commission case): causing excess water onto another's property “is beyond dispute” a trespass.

FEMA maps the parcels Zone X — outside any floodplain. No established drain, no recorded easement across our parcels. “If the route to the Snell Drain were lawful, there would be paperwork. There isn't.”

• Lock-in: one more lift of asphalt and the defect is sealed under a finished road — no practical remedy after.
• Mary's basement (6463): sump outlet sits exactly where more water is being sent; water previously crested 1″ below it. Next big rain risks her basement.
• Continuing trespass: driveway washes out, pond floods through, yard runs like a creek 5 months a year. My own driveway culvert is crushed flat — collapsed under a loaded truck bringing the stone I must buy every year to repair the flood damage. Only a sliver of light passes through it. Photos, video, and the site itself: imminent and real, not speculative (Pontiac Fire Fighters).

Their cost: scheduling. The contractor is mobilized — and it's their own contractor's fix: Nashville put it in change orders; the Road Commission denied them. Our cost without a pause: yards, a pond, a basement — then the public pays double to tear up a new road later. “The cheapest moment to fix this is right now, and it disappears the day they stripe the road.”

13+ households signed. Diverted stormwater is a safety hazard — drivers can't see driveway edges under moving water; a truck sank in my yard. MDOT engaged on drainage compliance. The public interest is a road built right the first time.

• Why not money damages? Continuing invasion, about to be made permanent. Yearly damage suits are no remedy; no award un-floods a basement or un-seals the defect.
• What exactly do you want stopped? Three things on our stretch only: final lift, striping, drainage close-out. One-page proposed order in hand.
• Engineering discretion? Discretion doesn't authorize discharging concentrated water onto private land (Wiggins). We're not asking the Court to design — their own contractor proposed the fix.
• Bond (MCR 3.310(D))? Ask for nominal/waived — limited items, short pause, the fix saves public money.
• “Water always went this way.” True — and my home flooded before. But the law prohibits increasing and concentrating it, which is exactly what the lowered culvert, unrestored ditch, and removed culvert do. “Already bad” is not a license to make it worse.
• Why sue engineer & contractor? They perform the work an injunction must reach. The record shows the contractor tried to do right — change orders denied. Our dispute is with the Road Commission's decisions.
• How do you know about change orders? “Matt, Nashville Construction's project manager, told me directly. We ask the Court to order production — they're Defendants' own documents.”