Opinion ID: 1119202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Government Code Section 831.8, Subdivision (b)

Text: This section provides that, subject to certain exceptions specified in subdivisions (c) and (d), neither an irrigation district nor an employee thereof nor the State nor a state employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the condition of canals, conduits or drains used for the distribution of water if at the time of the injury the person injured was using the property for any purpose other than that for which the district or State intended it to be used. (Italics added.) The majority, without extended analysis, holds that because petitioner is a reclamation district organized under Water Code section 50000 et seq. rather than an irrigation district organized under Water Code section 20500 et seq., it may not invoke the foregoing immunity. The issue is not so simple. Professor Arvo Van Alstyne, a noted authority on government tort liability who assisted in drafting the Tort Claims Act, cogently observes that  The meaning of the statutory term `irrigation district,' as used in § 831.8(b), is not entirely clear. Many irrigation districts, to be sure, exist pursuant to and are governed by the Irrigation District Law. Wat C §§ 20500-29978. These districts are unquestionably covered by § 831.8(b). But there are also many districts formed for irrigation purposes that are governed by other statutory provisions and may not bear the technical title of `irrigation districts' although for most practical purposes they are indistinguishable. See, e.g., California Water District Law (Wat C §§ 34000-38501). In addition, numerous water districts of various kinds maintain and operate canals and conduits for distribution of water for both irrigation and nonirrigation purposes. See, e.g., County Waterworks District Law (Wat C § 55330). In Hibbs v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1967) 252 CA2d 166, 60 CR 364, Govt C § 831.8 was cited as relevant to the liability of a flood control district for the drowning of a seven-year-old boy in an unfenced flood channel running through a residential area. The section's relevance, in the court's opinion, lay in the obvious legislative intent, as shown by subdivisions (c) and (d) of Govt C § 831.8, to require governmental entities maintaining water conduits and `drains' to take suitable precautions against injury to children foreseeably playing in the vicinity. (Van Alstyne, Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) § 3.46, p. 263, italics added.) While it is true that reclamation districts and irrigation districts are governed by separate statutory provisions, nevertheless we have insisted that they are organized for the same general purposes to accomplish similar objects. There is no essential difference in these respects between an irrigation district and a reclamation district. ... Irrigation districts are organized to reclaim land by supplying water thereto. ( Lindsay-Strathmore I. Dist. v. Superior Ct. (1920) 182 Cal. 315, 335-336 [187 P. 1056].) We have also observed that Reclamation includes irrigation in its general, ordinary sense and ... the term is quite generally applied to the reclaiming of arid lands as well as the shutting out of overflow waters. The primary purpose in each case is to regulate or control waters to the extent that lands may be brought into a state suitable for cultivation. ( Hershey v. Reclamation District No. 108 (1927) 200 Cal. 550, 568 [254 P. 542].) Indeed, the Legislature itself in statutes governing reclamation districts has defined reclamation works as such public works and equipment as are necessary for the unwatering, watering, or irrigation of district lands and other district operations. (Wat. Code, § 50013, italics added.) In similar fashion, the Legislature has specifically empowered a reclamation district to maintain and operate any irrigation system through which any lands in the district and lands contiguous thereto may be supplied with water for irrigation.... ( Id., § 50910.) It seems to me reasonable to conclude that in drafting section 831.8, subdivision (b), of the Government Code, the Legislature used the term irrigation in its broad, generic sense. It is a fair assumption that the Legislature intended that the statutory immunity extend to any districts which are formed for irrigation purposes and which use canals, conduits or drains to accomplish those purposes. Certainly, there is nothing in the legislative history of the section which suggests that the Legislature intended to single out for immunity only those irrigation districts which were formally organized under section 20500 et seq. of the Water Code. Such a narrow grant of immunity appears wholly arbitrary and capricious. The majority fails to suggest any basis for fairly distinguishing between the districts in terms of either their purposes or functions. I do not suggest that petitioner is necessarily entitled to immunity under section 831.8 under the facts of this case. Real parties' complaint may have pleaded sufficient facts to invoke the exception to immunity contained in subdivision (c) of that section, an issue which the majority does not elect to reach.