October 31, 2025
In August 2025, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District affirmed the dismissal of all claims brought by a group of homeowners against the Village of Channahon. The case, Craig Billie et al. v. Village of Channahon, 2025 IL App (3d) 240674-U, stemmed from repeated basement flooding that the homeowners alleged was caused by the Village’s approval of construction plans in a flood-prone area. The ruling provides useful clarification for Illinois municipalities that approving development plans or issuing building permits, without directly causing flooding, does not create governmental liability.
Background
The Village annexed property for a new subdivision located within the DuPage River floodplain, a FEMA-designated special flood hazard area. Developers built single-family homes with basements positioned below the base flood elevation. The Village reviewed and approved the subdivision plat and building permits and later issued certificates of occupancy.
Over time, heavy rains caused the DuPage River and groundwater levels to rise, repeatedly flooding basements and damaging utilities, flooring, furniture, and personal property. Homeowners asked the Village to purchase their homes, arguing it had approved unsafe construction. When the Village declined, they filed suit in Will County Circuit Court.
The Lawsuit
The homeowners claimed the Village was responsible under three sets of legal theories:
- Inverse condemnation and property “damage” under Article I, Section 15 of the Illinois Constitution (“Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation”).
- Continuing private nuisance, alleging the Village allowed the flooding to persist.
- Trespass, claiming the Village’s actions caused floodwater to invade their property.
The Circuit Court dismissed all counts with prejudice, finding that the Village had not caused the flooding. The homeowners appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the homeowners failed to show any Village-caused invasion of their property.
1. No “Taking” or “Damaging”
To establish a constitutional taking or damaging, a plaintiff must show that a government action directly caused a physical invasion or substantial interference with property use. The Court found no such connection here: the flooding resulted from natural conditions — rainfall, porous soil, and a shallow water table — not from any Village project or structure. Approving private building plans did not amount to a government taking or damaging.
2. No Nuisance
A private nuisance arises only when a property owner uses their own land in a way that unreasonably interferes with another’s property. Because the Village did not use its property to cause the flooding, and simply permitted private development, the Court found no basis for a nuisance claim.
3. No Trespass
A trespass occurs when someone intentionally causes an object or substance, such as water, to enter another’s property. Again, the Court found no allegations that the Village directed or caused the water to enter the homes. Natural rainfall and high groundwater, not municipal activity, produced the flooding.
As a result, all counts were properly dismissed with prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Permitting Does Not Create Liability — Issuing building permits or approving plans does not make a municipality responsible for natural flooding unless the municipality’s own conduct directly causes the problem.
- Direct Causation Required — Takings, nuisance, and trespass claims all require a causal link between government action and the harm alleged. Mere approval of private construction is not enough.
- Floodplain Awareness Still Matters — Municipalities should continue to follow FEMA standards and communicate flood-risk information to developers and residents, but such awareness will not ordinarily translate into legal liability.
- Early Dismissal Possible — Because the Village prevailed before discovery, the decision confirms that courts may dismiss similar claims at the pleading stage when no actionable government conduct is alleged.
Conclusion
The Billie v. Village of Channahon decision underscores that municipalities are not automatically liable for flooding simply because they approve construction in flood-prone areas. Without a direct causal link between government activity and the flooding, claims for takings, nuisance, or trespass will ordinarily fail. In this case, the Village’s approval of private construction plans — standing alone — did not constitute a taking, nuisance, or trespass under Illinois law.
For More Information
For additional guidance on flooding liability, takings, inverse condemnation, or eminent domain, please contact Steve Viz or any other Elrod Friedman attorney.