Another short one that's been in the hopper for a while, Sorrells v. City of Macomb, No. 3-13-0763 (Ill. App. Oct. 23, 2015), involving a claim for inverse condemnation that was a result of flooding.
The inundation of the plaintiffs' property came from a street that was developed privately, but later dedicated to the city. The court of appeals concluded that this was not sufficient to state a claim for inverse condemnation:
In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the streets were constructed by DK Linde and "dedicated" to the City. According to plaintiffs' allegations, the City had taken the plaintiffs' property in the form of a "drainage easement" for the drainage of its streets. "It is well established that the government may not take an easement without just compensation." Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745, 748 (1947), and Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987)). However, plaintiffs alleged that the private development as a whole caused the alleged unreasonable amount of surface water to drain onto their land from the detention and drainage basins.Specifically, plaintiffs alleged, "the water from the development, including from the streets, is being channeled and directed by said streets and is and will be unreasonably discharged from two Storm Water Detentions Basins onto Plaintiffs [property]." At most, the allegations, taken as true, indicate that the increased drainage onto the plaintiffs' land was for the benefit of both the private development and the public streets. Although temporary or permanent government-induced flooding can constitute a taking of property by flooding, the flooding as alleged in this case was induced by the private developers, not government action. Plaintiffs' complaint makes clear that the water allegedly invading the plaintiffs' property was drainage from two storm water detention basins or other drainage basins.Thus, the allegations of count IV of the third-amended complaint are insufficient to support plaintiffs' claim of a taking for public use where the alleged increased water drainage was coming from the entire development, including streets, through detention or drainage basins. The development was not a public property and the acceptance of the dedication of the streets inside the development does not give rise to a taking where the drainage was from the basins. In addition, plaintiffs failed to allege that the water draining from the development onto their land, in an unreasonable amount and unnatural channels, was the intended or foreseeable result, in whole or part, of the City's actions rather than that of the development. See Bay Bottoms Drainage District v. Cache River Drainage District, 295 Ill. 301 (1920); Arkansas Game & Fish, 568 U.S. at __, 133 S. Ct. at 522 (property loss is compensable as a "taking" only when the government intended to invade a protected property interest or the invasion was the direct, natural, or probable result of authorized activity as opposed to a resulting incidental or consequential injury) (citing Ridge Line, Inc., 346 F.3d at 1355-56).
Slip op. at 13-14.
Besides, "traditionally" inverse condemnation claims are those in which the government alone is alleged to be responsible for the flooding, not just one of the causes.