A property owner may sue the public waterworks agency for inverse condemnation based on allegations that the way it designed the water system resulted in the agency delivering water bearing far more sediment to his property than to other water users’ properties. The sediment ruining the irrigation pipes for his avocado orchard. Plaintiff’s claim was not barred simply because plaintiff “invited” the defendant to supply water to him. Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1198 should not be understood to bar inverse condemnation claims whenever a public agency is “invited” to supply services to a property owner. Rather, Williams involved a situation in which the plaintiff complained about pipe corrosion caused by a chemical component of the water (chloramine) which was supplied to all of the utility’s water users. Because the burden of that design was already borne by the entire public served by the utility, there was no unfair burden uniquely imposed on the individual plaintiff. Here, by contrast, the complaint alleged that the water delivered to the plaintiff contained far more sediment than water supplied to other water users, so it did allege an unfair and unique burden on the plaintiff that could properly be remedied by an inverse condemnation action.