Facts

This was an eminent domain action. The plaintiff acquired 822 acres of orchard land from defendant's 980 larger parcel for construction of its levee improvement project. The defendant's remaining property is 158 acres. Historically, the defendant used the larger parcel to grow, package, and store pears, cherries, and persimmons grown on the larger parcel and other properties in the area which defendant owns. The defendant's remaining property is improved with pear, cherry, and persimmon orchards, cold storage buildings and packing houses. The defendant estimated that following plaintiff's acquisition, the amount of fruit packed and stored at its remaining property would be reduced to 50 to 60 percent.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that prior to plaintiff's project, defendant's property was subject to a high risk of flooding, with a 20-year level of flood protection. After construction of its project, the defendant's remaining property would enjoy much greater flood protection, greater than 200 year protection. This increased flood protection is a significant benefit to the remainder.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the increased flood protection is not a benefit pursuant to Merced Irrigation District v. Woostenhulme, 4 Cal.3d 478 (1971), since the State has a duty to provide this protection. In the after condition, the cold storage and packing facilities on the remaining property will operate at substantially below capacity. There is little opportunity for alternative uses of these improvements.

Damages

The plaintiff's real estate appraiser concluded that the value of the land and improvements taken was $8,747,600. Severance damages amounted to $3,997,711 and the benefits were $2,715,905. The benefits were offset against the damages to reduce the net severance damage to $1,281,836. One of defendant's real estate appraisers concluded that the value for the property interest taken was $11,534,160 and that severance damages were $9,997,000. Its other appraiser concluded that the fair market value of the property interest taken was $10,815,000 and that the severance damages were $9,075,000.

Result

The parties reached a settlement.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 2, 2008.