There has been a “fiery” debate about whether it is a righteous position having certain conditions attached to providing the substantial sums needed by California to make whole the areas destroyed by the recent fires. Those considering the limitations need to understand how pernicious the problem is before deciding to release any funding. A recent story I came across displays the depth of the problem.
A friend had their home flooded due to a problem with the drainage system maintained by the local community. The flood definitely was caused by the city pipes. The city later blamed the problem on roots grown into their pipes causing the backup but took no responsibility for the damage done to the home.
The homeowner was left with no recourse but to pursue legal action against the city because of being stopped from having any recourse by other means. Their insurance did not cover such an event, nor would it normally. They pursued a tax benefit through a section of the tax code called “casualty losses,” but that can only be claimed if you are in a federally declared disaster area. The state of California conforms to the federal law. The homeowner had no other choice but to sue the city for the disaster caused.
The city asserted that the owner needs to have a backflow value. Backflow valves are designed to block drainpipes temporarily and prevent flow into a house. This is not normally needed though, since 2011, it is required in certain situations by the California plumbing code.
The code states, “Where a fixture is installed on a floor level that is lower than the next upstream manhole cover of the public or private sewer, serving such drainage piping, shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type of backwater valve. Fixtures on floor levels above elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve.”
One way the homeowner would know they need the valve is through their plumber. But in this case, they had previously done work on the house and had not been told by the city during inspections that they needed one of these valves.
They then did a major remodel and paid the city over $30,000 in permit fees to do the work. They could not complete their project without multiple inspections by the city to receive a Certificate of Occupancy. Never once did the city mention anything about needing to install a backflow valve. The city is the ultimate authority on whether the construction is done to code.
If you haven’t been involved in construction, then you don’t know how building inspectors can drive people crazy. A restauranteur who rebuilt his restaurant told me of how he hired a well-respected expert on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to make sure his remodel was in compliance. Still the inspector nitpicked him and made him change things according to the inspector’s interpretation of the code. This is not an unusual story.
The homeowner sued the city based on the fact it was the city’s pipes that had the problem destroying the first floor of his house and the city’s inspector certified the house had been built to code without a backflow valve.
The city then asserted they were not responsible because the California Supreme Court had ruled on this issue and absolved cities of any responsibility. In one such case, the City of Oroville v. The Superior Court of Butte County the Supreme Court ruled, “that the City of Oroville was not liable for property damage caused by raw sewage in a dental practice. The court found that the city was not liable because the dentists did not install a required backwater valve.”
We don’t know how much the city was paid in fees to do the work in Oroville or how many inspections they did. They most likely did at least two — a preliminary inspection and a final inspection. But the Supreme Court sided with the city against the residents of the community.
This ruling was made in 2019. The Supreme Court of California is (as are most of the courts in California) populated or appointed by very liberal justices. The Justices except for one were appointed by Democrats.
The city was paid handsomely for doing their job but is not responsible for their actions. Do you think if a business were paid so much money and did not do their job properly that the Justices would have sided with the business? Not a chance. How about ruling that they have proportionate responsibility? No, they did not. The Justices said no responsibility.
People are talking about the fact that California may elect a Republican Governor to straighten out the mess related to the fires. Or replacing Mayor Bass. The positions are both up for election in November 2026. Even if both were replaced, the executive would have to face legislative bodies overwhelmingly left of center. Then they have courts that constantly rule against businesses and residents in favor of governments.
It is going to be interesting to see what efforts are being made to expedite the reconstruction of destroyed communities and how the lawyers representing certain interests step in to derail the process with those courts stacked with liberal judges ruling against the people and stopping the process.
There is a lot of rebuilding to do in California. It starts with all levels of government and all three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. And it will not occur overnight. God help us.
