Is a private landowner entitled to compensation for damages caused by the failure of a water delivery system?

order to provide benefits to the public at large, a compensable direct taking of the submerged land may occur no matter how reasonable the government's conduct. Moreover, cases under the federal Constitution have held that a taking may occur when a government dam or flood control project subjects certain previously dry lands to inundation that is less than permanent, but is frequent and inevitably recurring. (Barnes v. United States (1976) 538 F.2d 865, 870, and cases cited.)" (Bunch II, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 437, fn. 1, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 935 P.2d 796, original italics.)

Similarly, damages caused by failure of a water delivery system do not resemble damages caused by failure of a flood control system, and they are judicially reviewed under the rule of strict liability. "Unlike flood control improvements, the purpose of a water delivery system is not to protect against the very injury that its failure caused. Unlike flood control improvements, failure of the pipe here subjected [plaintiff's] facility to injury from flooding that was not a risk it was exposed to in the absence of the pipe. Thus, the private landowner damaged by failure of the pipe, if left uncompensated, is forced to contribute a disproportionate share of the public undertaking." (Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 614615, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, fn. omitted.)