## Facts

- Allegretti & Company owned irrigated agricultural land in Imperial County overlying groundwater basins and used deep wells and pumps to irrigate crops grown by its tenant.
- Allegretti applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to redrill an inoperable well to support expanding crop production by about 200 acres.
- The County approved the CUP subject to a condition limiting Allegretti to extracting no more than 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year from the underlying aquifer.
- Allegretti contended the pumping limit prevented full agricultural development, reduced economic potential, and interfered with investment-backed expectations.
- Allegretti sued for inverse condemnation, claiming the pumping restriction constituted a compensable taking under the federal and California Constitutions.
- After Allegretti presented its liability evidence, the trial court entered judgment for the County under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 631.8, finding no compensable taking because the restriction did not eliminate all economically viable use and Allegretti failed to show the regulation did not advance a legitimate state interest.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning a CUP on a groundwater extraction cap constitutes a physical taking of groundwater rights.
2. Whether the extraction cap constituted a total regulatory taking by depriving the property of all economically beneficial or productive use.
3. Whether the extraction cap constituted a partial regulatory taking under the Penn Central factors (economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and character of the governmental action).
4. Whether the County acted without authority or in a manner that failed to substantially advance a legitimate state interest, thereby effecting a taking.
5. Whether the County’s actions caused a compensable temporary taking.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the County.
- The pumping limit was not a physical taking because the County did not occupy, possess, divert, or appropriate groundwater; it regulated the rate of extraction as a permit condition.
- Allegretti did not establish a Lucas-type total taking because productive agricultural use continued and the restriction did not deprive the property of all economically viable use.
- Under Penn Central, the evidence did not compel a finding of a taking given the continued feasibility of farming, the limited showing of severe economic loss, the lack of objectively reasonable expectations of unrestricted pumping, and the regulatory (non-appropriative) character of the action.
- The County acted pursuant to a valid ordinance and within its regulatory authority; the extraction limit was tied to legitimate objectives such as groundwater conservation and protection of regional water supplies.
- There was no temporary taking because the County’s actions did not render the property idle or cause near-total deprivation of beneficial use during any interim period.

## Legal Principles

- A physical taking requires government occupation or appropriation of a property interest; a permit condition that limits use, without government possession or diversion, is generally evaluated as regulation rather than physical appropriation.
- A total regulatory taking requires proof that the regulation deprives the owner of all economically beneficial or productive use; continued productive use defeats a Lucas claim.
- Partial regulatory takings are assessed under Penn Central by considering economic impact, interference with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action; general resource-management regulation under the police power weighs against compensation when substantial use remains.
- A land-use permit condition adopted under lawful authority and reasonably related to legitimate public purposes (including resource conservation) generally does not create takings liability absent the level of deprivation required under established takings tests.
- Temporary takings require more than short-term regulatory limits; absent near-total loss of use during the relevant period, no compensation is owed.

## Conclusion

The court held that Imperial County’s groundwater pumping cap, imposed as a condition of a conditional use permit, was a lawful regulatory measure that neither physically appropriated Allegretti’s groundwater rights nor effected a compensable regulatory or temporary taking because substantial productive agricultural use of the property remained.


Allegretti & Co. v. County of Imperial, 138 Cal. App. 4th 1261 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)