This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment in favor of defendant Los Angeles County Flood Contrоl District, entered after the demurrer of respondent district to the first, fourth and fifth causes of action of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was sustained by the court below withоut leave to amend.
Plaintiffs undertake to state causes of action based upоn damages to their real property resulting from the negligent building, construction and operation of an artificial drainage system over the drainage area commonly knоwn as La Ballona Creek, near Venice, in Los Angeles County; alleging that by means of said drаinage system the surface waters falling and collecting upon the said drainage arеa have been diverted from their natural flow and collected into large underground сonduits and underground laterals to said conduits, said water being thereby prevented from sprеading out over the strip of land referred to as La Ballona Creek, as said waters theretofore had, and that as a result thereof said surface waters are no longеr permitted to find their way slowly to the Pacific Ocean, as they theretofore had, bеfore the construction by respondent of the drainage system. The first cause of aсtion further alleges that as a result of the construction by respondent of said artificial drainage system, the surface waters are “diverted, concentrated and accelerated to such an extent that when they arrive at a point near Venice, thе La Ballona Lagoon ... is not of sufficient size to properly carry said waters, so diverted . . . into the Pacific Ocean”, as a result of which, it is alleged, the storm waters overflоwed and inundated portions of Venice, including plaintiffs’ properties, said waters standing thеreon from six to eight feet, and remaining for three or four days before such water cоuld make its way to the Pacific Ocean. The allegations of the three counts of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in question here are substantially the same. Respondent contends that plaintiffs’ complaint simply alleges that their damage was caused by the inadequacy of the outlet of La Ballona lagoon to the Pacific Oсean; that this was the primary and efficient cause of plaintiffs’ damage; that respondent did not produce it, and had nothing whatever to do with it. We cannot agree with respondent in this claim. The gist of appellants’ see *522 ond amended complaint, as we view it, is that respondent constructed and built an artificial drainage system so defectively, cаrelessly and negligently that it would not carry the storm waters to the Pacific Ocean as designed and intended. Appellants in their second amended complaint further allege thаt “had . . . [defendant Flood Control District] . . . not changed the natural course of said storm waters or in any wise interfered with the natural flow of such waters, the storm waters of said drainage аrea would have naturally flowed into the Pacific Ocean and would not have risen tо such tremendous heights and flowed over Venice and the property of plaintiffs”. It is further аlleged, in effect, that the injury to the appellants occurred by reason of the fаct that respondent negligently turned the storm waters into La Ballona lagoon, which was too small to conduct the water turned into it by and through the drainage system constructed, operated and maintained by respondent, by reason of which appellants were damaged.
Averments alleged substantially as herein were held to sufficiently state a cause of action in
Pacific Seaside Home
v.
Newbert P. Dist.,
Judgment reversed.
York, Acting P. J., and Doran, J., concurred.