In Ruiz v. County of San Diego, ordered published April 7, 2020, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 reversed a judgment after bench trial in an inverse condemnation case. Before the plaintiffs bought their property, a stream across the property was improved with a concrete channel, which developers then replaced with a pipeline on top of the channel. The pipeline is a continuation of a valley storm drain system, and is part of the natural watercourse. When the pipeline was built, the developers offered to dedicate the pipeline to the defendant county, which declined. The county did not participate in building or maintaining the pipeline. The plaintiffs did not know about the pipeline when they bought the property. Over 50 years after installation, the pipeline rusted out and water flooded the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs repaired the pipeline. They then sued the county for inverse condemnation. The trial court concluded that by "using" the pipeline for 50 years, the county had implicitly accepted a drainage easement, requiring the county to maintain the pipeline. The court therefore found the county liable for inverse condemnation. Alternatively, the court found inverse condemnation on the ground that anthe county had acted unreasonably by running water through the county-owned portion of the drain system to the pipeline. The court awarded the cost of replacing the pipeline, along with attorney fees and costs.
The court of appeal ruled that the law and evidence did not support the trial court's conclusion. Case law establishes that a privately owned pipeline on private property for which the public entity has expressly declined an offer of dedication does not become a public work merely because public water drains through it. The county must participate in planning, constructing, maintaining, inspecting, or repairing the pipeline. The county did not do so here. The alternative theory that the county was liable for unreasonably running water through the pipeline was not supported by substantial evidence. A public entity is privileged when it drains surface water into a natural watercourse, unless it acts unreasonably. The court ruled the unreasonable conduct was the county's failure to repair the pipeline. But the reasonableness analysis looks to whether the public entity acted reasonably in maintaining and controlling the portions of the drainage system the county owns. There was no evidence the county acted unreasonably concerning its own property.
Leave a Reply