When water agencies provide water to customers, and that water causes damage to customer property, can water agencies face inverse condemnation liability? For quite some time, inverse condemnation liability appeared to be unavailable based on the theory that the customer “invited” the water onto private property by voluntarily connecting to the public water system. However, a recent court of appeal decision, Shehyn v. Ventura County Pub. Works Agency (2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 94*), has opened the door to potential inverse claims, at least where a property owner receives a disproportionate amount of damage compared to other customers.
Background
In Shehyn, the plaintiff owns a 20-acre orchard with approximately 2,000 mature avocado trees. His property is at the end of a branch line in the district’s water system. He alleged that the amount of sediment in his water “is vastly and grossly disproportionately greater than other properties” served by the district, and the excess sediment damaged his irrigation pipes and orchard. Based on this damage, the owner sued the water district for inverse condemnation. The trial court sustained the district’s demurrer, finding that the inverse condemnation claim failed because the owner “invited” the district’s water onto his property.
Court of Appeal Decision
On appeal, the Court explained that a plaintiff seeking to recover for inverse condemnation must allege that a public entity has taken or damaged property for a public use, and the damage must be “substantially caused by an inherent risk presented by the deliberate design, construction, or maintenance of a public improvement.”
Here, the property owner alleges a public improvement (the district’s water delivery system), working as it was “deliberately designed, constructed and maintained,” delivered an amount of sediment that was “vastly and grossly disproportionally greater” than delivered to other properties and caused damage to his irrigation system. Because the owner is seeking compensation for bearing a disproportionate amount of the externalized costs of a public improvement resulting from an inherent risk presented by the deliberate design, construction, or maintenance of the public improvement, the Court held that this interpretation supports a claim for inverse condemnation.
The Court distinguished a prior case, Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1198, where homeowners unsuccessfully sued their water district for chloramine corroding their copper pipes because in that case, all customers received water containing the same chemical (i.e., the burden or cost of repair was already being shouldered by the public). While the Williams decision also found no liability based on the theory that the homeowners “invited” the water into their property, the Court here concluded there is no brightline rule barring inverse condemnation claims for damage caused by “invited” water.
Take-Aways
The Shehyn decision limits a water agency’s ability to completely eliminate inverse condemnation claims based on the “invited” water theory. While the opinion does not go so far as to open the door for common damage sustained by customers, if a property owner suffers a unique and distinct injury, inverse liability may be available.
