Bunch

Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution (section 19) provides that when a public entity takes or damages property, it must pay the owner just compensation. (See, e.g., Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327, 362 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 , 867 P.2d 724 ] (Locklin).) In Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. *436 693 , 764 P.2d 1070 ] (Belair), we held that when a public entity’s design, construction, or maintenance of a flood control project poses an unreasonable risk of harm to property historically subject to flooding and causes substantial damage to it, the property owners may recover damages for inverse condemnation under section 19. ( Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 564-567.) Belair concluded that, if the public entity acted unreasonably, compensation “constitutes no more than a reimbursement to the damaged property owners of their contribution of more than their [proportionate share to the public undertaking].” (Id. at p. 566.) The question here is whether, in the narrow and unique context of flood control litigation, Belair's rule, as endorsed and refined by Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327 , should apply…

I concur in the analysis and result reached by the majority.

I write only to point out that the majority opinion, relying substantially on Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 693 , 764 P.2d 1070 ], is not fundamentally inconsistent with my dissent in Belair (id. at p. 568 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.)).