Hauselt

Hauselt v. County of Butte

Good Law
172 Cal. App. 4th 550·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 422·91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 343
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 2009C054927California5,242 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

This is an action for inverse condemnation in a flood control context. We uphold the judgment that found, with one exception, no inverse condemnation liability. We do so because the trial court, in this bench trial, decided all material issues, and properly found that defendant public entity’s activities met the applicable legal standard—the rule of reasonable conduct (also known as the reasonableness rule).

Background

In 1988, William Hauselt (plaintiff), an experienced property developer, purchased a 94-acre almond orchard about a mile north of Chico, eventually intending to develop the property as a residential subdivision. To date, plaintiff has been unsuccessful in obtaining development approval. A natural watercourse called Keefer Slough, which is on plaintiff’s property, forms its northern boundary; the western boundary is adjacent to Highway 99. North of Keefer Slough are two parcels that were developed into the subdivisions of Carriage Estates (Carriage) and Wildflower Estates (Wildflower).

Keefer Slough is situated between Rock Creek to the north and Mud Creek to the south. For many years, Keefer Slough received floodwater overflow from Rock Creek via a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.