In Wlliams v. Moulton Niguel Water District et al., published May 3, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed judgment granted to the defendant water district after a bifurcated bench trial. The plaintiff class of homeowners alleged that the district's addition of chloramine to the water the homeowners were receiving caused pinhole leaks in copper piping through corrosion. The class alleged that the district was liable for maintaining a nuisance, and for inverse condemnation. The district's water complied with all federal and state drinking standards, and all federal and state tests for determining the corrosivity of drinking water, at all relevant times.
The appellate court held that the district was immune from nuisance liability under Civil Code section 3482, which provides that nothing done under the express authority of a statute can be a nuisance. The statute applies not only to the authority of statutes, but also regulations and other government approvals. The immunity applies because the district had a permit from the California Department of Health Services expressly allowing it to use chloramines, and because regulations specifically allowed use of chloromines in the amount the district used. The appellate court further determined that the district could not be held liable for the damage to the water pipes, even assuming that it was caused by the chloramines. Allowing inverse condemnation liability for what was essentially a products liability claim would expand inverse condemnation compensation beyond the traditional realm of eminent domain, for two reasons. First, the district is not singling out members of the public to bear a cost that the public should share. Instead, the cost is shared by all of the homeowners receiving the water. Second, inverse condemnation based on water is based on the water not being welcome on the homeowner's property. By contrast, here the homeowners invited the entry of the water, by purchasing it from the district.
Comments