What is the test for determining the amount of damage caused to a property by an increase in the flow of a river?

Plaintiffs rely on two cases, the first being Butte County v. Boydston (1883) 64 Cal. 110, 29 P. 511. In this case the county intended to condemn a strip of property through defendant's farm for a road in such a way as to make it necessary for him to fence his remaining land. The court held that the cost of fencing the remainder of defendant's property after a partial taking by plaintiff was a proper element in determining the total amount of damage.

The second case, Dunbar v. Humboldt Bay Mun. Wat. Dist. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 480, 62 Cal.Rptr. 358 (a decision of this court), involved the increase in the flow of a river which impeded plaintiff's access to his summer home. Plaintiff testified that he was compelled to expend several thousand dollars to buy and to adapt and

Page 81

When these cases are subjected to scrutiny, it will be seen that they do not further plaintiffs' cause but are merely facets of the general rule in assessing damages in eminent domain and inverse condemnation cases. (See Breidert v. Southern Pac. Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 659, 663, fn. 1, 39 Cal.Rptr. 903, 394 P.2d 719.)