High Court Clears Way for Suit Over Lake : Rights: The justices refused to hear an appeal of a ruling against the state of California. As a result, the lawsuit over the draining of Sinaloa Lake in 1983 can be tried in federal court.

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for a trial over a lawsuit filed by a group of Ventura County property owners who claim the state of California violated their rights in 1983 by draining a small lake they owned above Simi Valley.

The court opened the way for trial by refusing to hear the state’s appeal of a ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held last year that the lawsuit could be tried in federal court.

“We’re greatly pleased,” said William Hill, president of the Sinaloa Lake Owners Assn. “We’ve been confronted by numerous roadblocks along the way, and they’ve resulted in an intolerable seven years of waiting just to get into court.”

The state drained Sinaloa Lake, off Madera Road near the southwest corner of Simi Valley, and breached its earthen dam in March, 1983, after heavy rains caused two slides on the dam and prompted evacuation of about 1,400 residents living below the lake.

The state said the state Department of Water Resources destroyed the dam because further rainfall could have caused it to give way. California law gives the state authority to take such actions in an emergency.

“The dispute comes down to their contention there wasn’t an emergency and our contention that there was one,” said California Deputy Atty. Gen. Joel A. Davis. State attorneys have argued that a trial would have a chilling effect on the ability of state and local governments to take emergency actions to protect public safety.

The Sinaloa Lake Owners Assn., however, maintained that no emergency existed. Therefore, they argued, the group was entitled to a hearing before the dam was destroyed. They also said the state concealed its intention to destroy the dam until the last possible moment.

“Whether it was an emergency or not, they had decided to destroy this dam some time before they told our people,” said Michael M. Berger, the lawyer for the lake owners. “They said they were concerned about its safety, but at the time they destroyed the dam, most of the lake had been drained, there wasn’t any water behind it and they were waiting for a report from the association on the condition of the dam.”

The lawsuit was filed under the U.S. Civil Rights Act by 26 of the 41 families who owned the lake and lived on its rim.

The suit also names Ventura County and the city of Simi Valley as defendants because the dam had been damaged by a water line constructed by the county and owned by the city. A state inspection of the dam in February, 1983, found safety and maintenance problems that included the water-line leak, which had caused part of the dam to fall away.

The state Department of Safety of Dams asked the Sinaloa property owners to investigate the stability of the dam and make repairs. They were given until March 15, 1983, to do so, Davis said.

But before the investigation was complete, heavy rains began. The city of Simi Valley and Ventura County ordered evacuation of people below the dam on March 2 and partially drained the lake. Two days later, the state decided to drain the lake completely. Concerned that a new storm would refill the lake, the state began destroying the dam March 11.

The lake, which covered 12 acres and was 35 feet deep, was integral to the life style of residents, who used it for fishing and boating. It also was a wildlife habitat that attracted migrating Canada geese. Today, it is filled with trees, shrubs and weeds.

The lake owners are seeking permission to rebuild the dam and want damages to pay for its restoration and for loss of property, emotional distress, decreased property values and legal costs. Hill compared the loss of the lake to “somebody taking your back yard.”

The state also has maintained that there are sufficient remedies in California law for property owners to sue for damages in state court after the state has taken or damaged their property without compensation. But in January, 1989, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 1986 decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie barring the dispute from going to trial in federal court.

The U.S. Circuit Court, while rejecting some of the plaintiffs’ arguments, said the case could go to trial on a claim that the property owners had been denied their due process under the 14th Amendment.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the state argued that unless the court prevented the case from going to trial, a plethora of such suits would be filed every time government officials “took action in an apparent emergency that result in property damage.

“The responsibilities of state officers faced with weighing the public interest with individual rights on a daily basis are great enough without allowing this additional intolerable burden,” the state said.