O'Hara v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

19 Cal.2d 61 (1941) JAMIE O'HARA et al., Appellants,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, Respondent.

L. A. No. 17614. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

Nov. 14, 1941. Joseph K. Coady and Henry K. Elder for Appellants.

J. H. O'Connor, County Counsel, S. V. O. Prichard, Assistant County Counsel, and Arthur S. Loveland, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

TRAYNOR, J.

Plaintiffs are the owners of certain land in Los Angeles County near the Los Angeles River. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District replaced the low permeable dikes that bordered the river with concrete levees, and constructed a concrete embankment running at right angles to the levees away from the river. These improvements, constructed for the purpose of flood control, increased the velocity of the water flowing in the river by preventing it from spreading out over adjoining lands, and obstructed the drainage of surface waters into the river. The only provision for drainage of the area created by the levee and the embankment was a four foot culvert opening into the river at a point near the junction of the levee and the embankment. On March 2, 1938, a heavy rainstorm occurred. The water flowed in the river at a speed heightened by defendant's improvements, burst through the river banks and damaged plaintiffs' property. The surface waters, prevented by defendant's improvements from draining into the river, flooded plaintiffs' land. Plaintiffs thereupon brought this action against the flood control district, claiming the [63] right to recover damages under article I, section 14 of the California Constitution. Defendant's demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and plaintiffs have appealed after refusing to amend.

[1] Compensation for private property taken or damaged for a public use must be made under article I, section 14, only when the taking or damaging of property is not so essential to the public health, safety, and morals as to be justified under the "police power," and the injury is one which would give rise to a cause of action on the part of the owner if it were inflicted by a private person. (Archer v. City of Los Angeles, ante, p. 19 [119 PaCal.2d 1], this day decided.)