California Court: Pre-condemnation Entry Statute Unconstitutional
A California appellate court recently declared its pre-condemnation entry statute unconstitutional. Property Reserve, Inc. v. Dep’t of Water Resources (JCCP No. 4594, March 13, 2014). While we are not going to recount all the details of the comprehensive opinion here, the State was seeking access to private property pre-condemnation in connection with a proposed tunnel project for delivery of water from the North to the South in order to study the geological and environmental conditions of the properties within the proposed tunnel route. The State sought court approval of the preliminary entries.
The trial court granted the State preliminary entry for environmental testing on set terms, and denied preliminary entry for geological testing on the grounds that those activities would result in the permanent physical occupation of private property, i.e. a taking of private property which could only be accomplished by commencement of a condemnation action.
With respect to the environmental studies, much like the New Jersey statute which applies to preliminary entry, the California statute allows a potential condemnor to “enter upon property to make photographs, studies, surveys, examinations, tests, soundings, borings, samplings or appraisals or to engage in similar activities reasonably related to acquisition….” Cf. N.J.S.A. 20:3-16. Unlike the trial court, the California Appellate Court found that the “entry order for environmental activities authorizes a taking of a property interest in the nature of a temporary easement that must be acquired in a condemnation suit” and therefore reversed the Order authorizing preliminary entry.
The appellate court explained its findings by use of a four-part balancing test: 1) The degree to which the invasions are intended; 2) the character of the invasions; 3) the amount of time the invasions will last; and 4) the economic impact of the invasion. After employing the test, the court concluded, “all the factors weigh in favor of a finding of a temporary taking. The invasion and its consequences are intended by the State similar to a direct condemnation for a temporary easement. The invasion is a physical invasion, “a government intrusion of an unusually serious character.” (quoting Loretto v. Teleprompter, 458 U.S. 419 (1982).
In New Jersey, the preliminary entry statute automatically provides the property owner with a right to claim damages if a condemning agency does not commence a condemnation action within two years after the preliminary entry.
It’s extremely likely that the State will seek review from the California Supreme Court. But in the meantime, think twice next time a condemnor seeks to gain preliminary entry onto your client’s property.
