Wanders v. Nelson

MUSSELL, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment in this action to enjoin defendants from interfering with the natural flow of surface waters from plaintiffs’ land over that owned by the defendants, for damages, and to require the defendants to

[268]

remove obstructions and levees alleged to have been constructed by them. The sole question involved, is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment.

Plaintiffs and defendant Nelson own contiguous acreage in Chula Vista. The lands owned by Nelson lie west and south of plaintiffs’ property. The natural drainage of surface water is westerly across Lots 9A and 8, owned by plaintiffs, and thence in a westerly and northerly direction across Lot '7, owned by defendant Nelson.

For many years prior to 1945, the properties involved consisted of lemon orchards. In that year, plaintiffs removed the orchards from their property and leveled all of their land for the purpose of planting and raising vegetables, more particularly celery. In the process of such leveling, plaintiffs changed and altered the natural drainage across their property. In 1948, defendants Black and Date, lessees.of defendant Nelson, removed a lemon orchard from Lot 7, owned by Nelson, and cultivated, leveled, planted and raised celery on said lot. In thé leveling, cultivating and normal farming operations thereon, said defendants caused some dirt to be moved from á low spot, running through Lot 7, and raised the level of the north line about 2 inches for a distance of approximately 75 feet, thereby, to some extent, obstructing the flow of excess irrigation water from plaintiffs’ land over that of the defendants. This is the obstruction which plaintiffs claim interfered with the natural flow of surface waters and which they assert will cause such waters to be dammed up -and flood plaintiffs’ land, causing injury to their crops.

The trial court found that the cultivation and leveling of Lot 7 by the defendants did' obstruct the flow of the excess irrigation water, but that the acts of the defendants did not cause such waters to flow back and stand'upon plaintiffs’ land; that the acts of the defendants did not cause any injury whaL soever to plaintiffs’ land and celery crop, kill any plants of plaintiff, make the soil unfit for cultivation, or cause damage to the plaintiffs.