California Surveyors Forums

Given:
1. The Property in question was built in incorporated City A
2. There are large underground PUBLIC (Owned by City A) storm drain structures on the exterior and upstream of the property in question (PIQ)
3. These upstream structures are in the public ROW and on private property
4. These same structures run through the PIQ (a mobile home park)
5. They then drain into a large open channel
6. The open channel then drains into PUBLIC underground storm drain system owned by City B
7. The PUBLIC storm drain then leaves the PIQ

Both city A and B are saying all the storm drain facilities on the PIQ are PRIVATE and that someone would have to show them an easement over the storm drain for them to accept maintenance responsibility.

Thoughts?

There must be continuity for the Public's system to function. Was there a USGS stream pre-existing the storm drain improvements? Look at the Master Drainage Plans for both cities.

In any case it seems to be a legal issue.

I have a case where the details are similar yet opposite. County clearly calls a giant channel running through my client's parcel as a component of their storm stain system. But there is no easement. It is in litigation.

Interesting, in the late 70s I did a trailer park in the City of Carson that had a natural storm channel right thru the middle of it and a headwall ~2/3 of the way thru downstream.
I only did the field work so I have no idea who owned what.

In LA County we have many drains built with the intention of transferring the drain to the county flood control district. However some aspect of the process had not been completed and the drains remain in the control of the property owner. LA County also has an ordinance requiring the property owner to maintain the drain unless it is within a public easement and the drain accepted by the public agency.

Also, be careful of words like "natural", "channel", "watercourse", or "stream".

Who approved the storm drain improvements on the PIQ? Who constructed the improvements? Was there an offer of dedication and subsequent acceptance?

By your mention of "large", perhaps it is fair to assume for discussion that there was a "watercourse", or "stream", existing in this area prior to constructing the improvements on the PIQ. Constuction of the improvements effectively altered this pre-existing "watercourse". If the Public generally has the right to use a "natural" "watercourse", or "stream" to discharge stormwater into, and the City, or County, approves alterations to this "watercourse", or "stream", to facilitate development, does a public storm drainage easement attach to the altered "watercourse" on PIQ?

I guess the answer depends on who seeks to benefit. I am working with two variations to this argument in litigation currently. In one instance the City is rejecting the argument, in the other the County is using it to their benefit.

Guess its a good thing we don't have Beavers around here. :)