United States v. 2,124.67 Acres of Land
United States v. 2,124.67 ACRES OF LAND, Dwight Murphy and Grace Murphy
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jesse W. Carter (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pretrial motion by the defendants to recover for the loss of water springs and streams located on land not taken by the government. The court ruled that such damages are not recoverable in this condemnation action because the loss was caused by later construction on other lands, not the taking of the defendants' property.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' claim for damages to water sources (springs and stream) is denied.“Assuming that this later construction of the tunnel was the proximate cause of the drying up of the springs and the stream of the defendants, recovery for this loss or damage may not be had in this action.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that just compensation in a condemnation action is limited to the value of the property taken and damages to the remainder of the taken property caused by the use of the appropriated portion. Since the water sources were on land not taken, and the damage was caused by the construction of the tunnel on other lands (not the defendants' land), the loss is considered 'consequential' or 'remote' damage not compensable in this proceeding. The reliance on Danforth and Campbell supports this conclusion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for just compensation in condemnation cases, specifically distinguishing between direct damages to the taken property/remainder and consequential damages caused by the use of other lands. The court properly applies Danforth and Campbell to the facts that the water sources were not on the taken land and the damage was caused by the tunnel construction on other lands.
Opinion — Carter
JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge.
As part of pretrial procedure under Rule 16, F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A., the plaintiff and the defendants, Dwight Murphy and Grace Murphy, raise a question for determination prior to trial.
For the purpose of this ruling only, plaintiff concedes that the facts as set forth by defendant land owners are correct, and proceeding arguendo, contends that the land owners may not recover in this proceeding for an alleged loss of a stream of cold water, hot sulphur springs and a flow of hot sulphur water below the springs.
The declaration of taking was filed July 26, 1950, and on the same date the complaint was filed. The property taken from the Murphys was land in the Santa Ynez Valley, Santa Barbara county. The hot springs and stream are not on such land.
The construction of the Tecolote Tunnel, through the mountains from the Santa Ynez Valley to the coastal plain above Santa Barbara was not commenced until long after the date of taking of the land in question. Nor was any land for the Tecolote Tunnel taken from these land owners. The Tecolote Tunnel was, constructed on land taken from other land owners.
Assuming that this later construction of the tunnel was the proximate cause of the drying up of the springs and the stream of the defendants, recovery for this loss or damage may not be had in this action. “Just compensation is value at the time of the taking”, Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, at page 283, 60 S.Ct. 231, at page 236, 84 L.Ed. 240. The taking here occurred July 26, 1950.
*530Defendants’ contention that the Cachuma Dam and the Tecolote Tunnel were part of the integrated project under the statutes passed in connection therewith, even if true, is not determinative. “The mere enactment of legislation which authorizes condemnation of property cannot be a taking as such legislation may be repealed or modified, or appropriations may fail”, Danforth v. United States, supra, 308 U.S. at page 286, 60 S.Ct. at page 237, 84 L.Ed. 240. [Emphasis added.] See Thompson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 744, 745.
Just compensation is restricted to the value of the land taken, and the damage to the remainder of the land occasioned by use of the portion appropriated, and does not include damage to the residue by reason of the use of adjoining lands of others. Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328.
Counsel will prepare an appropriate order pursuant to the rules of this court.