Legal Question in Administrative Law in California

A question about a city's vs. homeowner responsibility

Hi, I own a home whose water pipe has been broken by tree roots. Neither the tree nor the place at which the pipe broken are on my property. Because the tree and the pipes are in the city streets, I believe that the city should pay the $15,000 to fix the water pipe. However, after calling city hall, I was told that 1) It is my responsibility as the homeowner to fix it, and 2) The tree cannot be torn down as it is old and a part of the city. I would like to know, which one of us is right? Thank you in advance for any clarification you can give.


Asked on 3/11/04, 8:43 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

Re: A question about a city's vs. homeowner responsibility

You don't say whether it is a municipal (city) water supply or a private water utility, but I'll assume the former.

NORMALLY, I'd say that the tree owner is responsible and that you're being conned by city hall. However, I can also imagine a scenario under which they aren't, which is as follows:

If the pipe serving your house is a branch off a water main, and the branch services only your property, it is POSSIBLE that the city could take the position that it extended water service to your property by granting you an easement across city land and under the city's tree, and that one of the conditions of the easement was that YOU must install and maintain the pipe within the easement.

So, it's a situation where the terms dictated to you (or your precursor) for getting served might supersede the normal legal rules for liability for invasive tree roots.

I would suggest taking the matter up with the city attorney in your community to demand a better explanation.

Read more
Answered on 3/12/04, 1:06 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Administrative Law questions and answers in California