1 / 10

Paterno v. State

CVFPB Meeting January 10, 2013. Paterno v. State. Nicole Rinke, Deputy Attorney General. Nicole Rinke, Deputy Attorney General. Factual History. 2003 decision - Court of Appeal , Third District 1986 flood F ailure of a state owned levee in Yuba County

lluvia
Download Presentation

Paterno v. State

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CVFPB Meeting January 10, 2013 Paterno v. State Nicole Rinke, Deputy Attorney General Nicole Rinke, Deputy Attorney General

  2. Factual History • 2003 decision - Court of Appeal, Third District • 1986 flood • Failure of a state owned levee in Yuba County • Resulted in approximately $100 million in claimed damages • Levee originally built in early 1900’s - had survived three earlier storms • Evidence indicated that it failed not due to inadequate capacity, but seepage

  3. Court’s Holding • Court found the state liable for property damages as a matter of inverse condemnation using a reasonableness standard. • Inverse liability, under the California Constitution, “dictates that a landowner should not bear a disproportionate share of the harm directly caused by failure of a flood control project due to an unreasonable plan.”

  4. The Reasonableness Standard • Balancing Factors • Was the levee failure foreseeable? • Did the individual receive some unique offsetting reciprocal benefit? • Were there feasible alternatives that would have avoided the harm? • Are the taxpayers as a whole in a better position to absorb the risk? • Is the damage a normal risk of ownership? • Were the damages distributed across the project? • Would the allocation of damages deter future projects? • Is the damage a normal risk of property ownership?

  5. Application of the Factors • Was the failure foreseeable? • Levee initially constructed in 1904. • Corps levee design standards adopted 1978. • Reclamation District 1970 letter. • Offsetting reciprocal benefit? • Property had been protected in prior floods. • But benefit was shared with all.

  6. Application of the Factors • Feasible Alternatives? • Meeting design standards ≠ upgrade. • Cost effective means existed to address seepage control. • Taxpayers better positioned to absorb risk? • Nothing more individuals could have reasonably done. • Personal insurance does not eliminate loss. • Damage = normal risk?

  7. Application of the Factors • Distribution of damages? • System wide view. • Deterrent effect of damages? • No deterrent. • Liability will only: “discourage the state from failing to determine if the project physically meet the design standards and discourage them from failing to heed warnings.”

  8. A few other important tidbits • State is responsible for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project as if it built it initially. • State will not be liable for failing to upgrade, but will be liable for failing to maintain function at designed capacity. • Takings = discretionary, policy-level decisions. • Takings ≠ ministerial acts or negligent O&M. • Local Reclamation District Liable? • No. Only liable to extent of its authority. • But JPAor locally led flood control projects may be liable.

  9. Conclusion • Paternoreasonableness standard will likely apply to any future levee failures. • Case-by-case analysis. • Tough standard, but the Board has taken important steps: • Adopted CVFPP; • Taking steps to implement and increase enforcement.

  10. Paterno Questions?

More Related