235 Cal. App. 4th 914
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Contra Costa County operates a storm drain on Lettia Road that connects to a downstream drainage channel on Pinole Point’s undeveloped Remainder Parcel, which ultimately drains to San Pablo Bay.
- Pinole Point purchased the Remainder Parcel in 1979; the Drainage Channel was then open, obvious, and historically maintained but later became clogged with vegetation, debris, and sediment.
- County installed a 54-inch storm pipe in 1982 that discharges into the Drainage Channel; flooding of homes on Lettia Road occurred in 2009 after the channel became obstructed.
- Homeowners sued the County; County cross-complained against Pinole Point for nuisance and negligence; Pinole Point cross-complained asserting inverse condemnation and other claims.
- At bench trial the court found the Drainage Channel is a natural watercourse, held Pinole Point’s failure to maintain it unreasonable, awarded the County $141,090.10 for emergency pumping, and issued a mandatory injunction requiring Pinole Point to clear and maintain the channel.
- On appeal Pinole Point argued it had no duty to maintain the channel, the County was unreasonable and liable (including inverse condemnation), and the injunction/remedy were improper; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Pinole Point) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Status of Drainage Channel (natural watercourse?) | Channel is a natural watercourse that must be maintained | Channel was man-made/mitigation and not a natural watercourse | Court: channel is a natural watercourse (satisfied Locklin/San Gabriel definitions) |
| Duty to maintain channel | Downstream owner must act reasonably; Pinole Point knew/should have known and must maintain | Downstream owner has no duty to remove sediment it did not create; maintenance duty lies with County or easement holder | Court: duty exists under reasonableness rule; failure to maintain can create liability |
| Liability in tort (negligence/nuisance) | Pinole Point’s omission was unreasonable and caused flooding; County acted reasonably | County’s projects increased flow/silt and County should bear costs; Pinole Point did nothing affirmative to alter flow | Court: substantial evidence Pinole Point acted unreasonably; County acted reasonably; Pinole Point liable for negligence and nuisance |
| Inverse condemnation (public entity liability) | County’s drainage projects were reasonable; no increased volume/velocity causing damage | County’s projects increased flow/silt and thus should be liable in inverse condemnation | Court: Locklin reasonableness test not met for Pinole Point’s inverse-condemnation claim; County not liable |
| Remedy (injunction & damages) | Damages insufficient to prevent future harm; injunction necessary to prevent repeated floods | Relief requiring affirmative maintenance and costly permitting is unreasonable and beyond court power | Court: damages awarded; permanent mandatory injunction ordering Pinole Point to clear/maintain channel and provide temporary pumping affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Keys v. Romley, 64 Cal.2d 396 (1966) (establishes the reasonableness test for landowners altering or affecting surface water)
- Locklin v. City of Lafayette, 7 Cal.4th 327 (1994) (applies reasonableness test to public entities and inverse condemnation for surface-water discharges)
- Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., 47 Cal.3d 550 (1988) (addresses inverse-condemnation and unreasonable acts/omissions by public entities)
- Gdowski v. Louie, 84 Cal.App.4th 1395 (2000) (discusses application of Keys reasonableness instruction vs. general negligence principles)
- Costello v. Bowen, 80 Cal.App.2d 621 (1947) (supports equitable relief—injunction—to stop maintenance of structures that cause flooding)