California Supreme Court per our Constitution-Causation-Withholding of Evidence   

Main Navigation

Honorable California Supreme Court Justices, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado and California State Senator Sam Blakslee
                         Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado stated in a letter May 12, 2009  
      "I hope that you continue to seek legal counsel and that this very difficult situation will be resolved soon."  Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado has seen these Caltrans documents Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf

  Videos seen by the Second Appellate Court of California (Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan) showing Caltrans Shoveling and Grading Contaminated debris into a storm water drainage system, over and over!

Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado and Senator Sam Blakeslee, are aware of the County Of San Luis Obispo letters in this pdf file showing the-- 

County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal and their December 18, 2006 letter calling this flooding a "potentially dangerious situation"  pdf 

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan do not mention--

Testimony of Caltrans in front of Judge Martin J. Tangeman- P. 1506 of the Court Transcript of Caltrans Supervisor Fred Brebes before their actions above!  Mr. Brebes States:  "Question: And did -- And did during this period of time, do you recall your maintenance crews working within the channel that leads from Highway 1 off of 13th Street?  Answer: Yes."  P. 1508 By Mr. Belsher:  So did your crews engage in this practice of using a loader to clean the channel that's depicted in that photograph, on more then one occasion?  Answer: Yeah -- Yes, I Would say Yes

California Supreme Court--Inverse Condemnation

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan do not view the 500 photos and videos presented to them and Judge Martin J. Tangeman of Caltrans raising State Highway 1 and then grading and shoveling debris and contamination into the Oceano storm water drainage system, while the Oceano Community Service District dredges 2500 gallons of debris and well water into this system daily as a cause of the flooding of our State Highway 1!  Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan State:

"Bookout points to no findings of fact in his favor. Instead, he relies on over 500 photographs and videos showing the flooding, several hundred documents which he claims show each defendant exercised dominion and control over the drainage facilities, and the testimony of his expert engineer, Keith Crow. He believes the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming.

Bookout claims the evidence is credible because it is uncontradicted. He cites Joseph v. Drew (1950) 36 Cal.2d 575, 579, for the proposition that uncontradicted testimony of a witness may not be disregarded, but should be accepted as proof of the fact to which the witness testified. Indeed, there are no doubt cases where the uncontradicted testimony of a witness is so credible that no reasonable trier of fact could reject it. But this is not such a case.
Here there is an obvious cause of the flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees." 

 

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan are fully aware of Judge Martin J. Tangemans statements in his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision on P. 7 per photo exhibits # 1278-1337 and 1338 of this OCSD pipe directly inside the Railroad Culvert!  They now allow Government to block and dam storm water drainages systems as seen in these photos!   Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...

 

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan have seen the Caltrans photo evidence from this 1953 Caltrans photo before the County and Caltrans changed the drainage at Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles streets!Caltrans 1953 Aerial Photo Knowlodge of County/Caltrans drainage changes to our Pacific Ocean! pdf...  

 
The Second Appellate Court has seen this Caltrans August 11, 1967 photo showing the Railroad house's have been removed and that the drainage channel is different then today.  The Second Appellate Court is mistaken in their statement   "The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees."
 This photo above shows the Railroads property before the County and Cal Trans changed the Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel. This photo was provided by Cal Trans from a 1973 Drainage study going to the Ocean
 

It is unfortunate that San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman would not allow in as evidence Exhibit 1789.  This evidence tied in with the photos below, that went with exhibit # 579 that Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman chose also to not allow in as evidence showing that the flooding of our State Highway could be abated  for only $43,295.00 as seen in exhibit # 1790.   Caltrans actions as seen in these photos raising State Highway 1 a foot has put every California resident in danger with this new California Case Law decision July 28, 2010!
Bookout v. State Of California K...     Bookout v. State of California Supreme Court Appeal...   
 
Honorable California Supreme Court Justices, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado and California State Senator Sam Blakslee Exhibit # 1789 talks about what the photos show in exhibit # 579 that Judge Martin J. Tangeman would not allow into evidence!  Why is Caltrans raising our State Highway as seen in these photos knowing of prior drainage Problems?  Please inform each California Senator and State Assembly Member of San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman's actions!

Exhibit # 1789 States September 15, 1987: “It was believed that our proposed plan of installing a 36-inch pipe to replace an existing 24- inch pipe would be acceptable to the property owners if it could be shown that the project would only affect the downstream owners minimally.”

“And that even though there had been some light rainfall years there is a good possibility of heavy flooding in this area in the future of both the Highway areas and the County areas.”

“The State could raise the height of Highway one approximately one foot and leave both the County and the Oceano Community Services District the problem to solve on their own (P. Hom)” Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf 

Please review the following websites: www.governorarnoldschwarzenegger.net  
www.inversecondemnation.net          www.californiasupremecourt.info www.californiasupremecourts.com    www.secondappellatecourt.com www.oceanonursery.com                   www.supremecourtofcalifornia.com www.supremecourtcalifornia.com       www.supremecourtjustices.net   www.heritageoaksbankquestions.com     www.unitedstatessupremecourt.net 
www.governormegwhitman.co   www.unitedstatessupremcourt.com 
www.governorbrown.net      www.lieutenantgovernorabelmaldonado.com
www.senatorsamblakeslee.com             www.governorjerrybrown.net 
www.governormegwhitmancalifornia.com   www.assemblymankatchoachadjian.com
www.californiasupremcourt.co

This is the Oceano Community Service District opinion of the evidence presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman as seen in the websites above!Adam M. Daner Supreme Court Answer To Petition For Review Case No. S1852767 Case No. B214906 pdf...   

I would like to thank, Mark L, Mosley of the law Firm Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate, LLP for their Amicus Brief Letter as all California Residents are affected by the Second Appellate Courts published California Case Law Decision in Bookout v. State Of California July 28, 2010!   Amicus Letter in Bookout v. State Of California to the California Supreme Court September 8, 2010 pdf... 


Mr. Derek S. Van Hoften, representing Caltrans misleads the California Supreme Court in his Opposition Depublication request from the Second Appellate Court.  Mr. Van Hoften, ignores the Amicus Brief showing Baker v. Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985)   He States: "(1) the three-year statute of limitations applies to bar the action because the flooding allegedly caused by the public entities did not constitute control or possession of plaintiff's property,"  How is it that Caltrans can raise a State Highway and not have to address State drainage per new California Case Law "Bookout v. State of California"?

Caltrans Answer to Petition For Review September 15, 2010 ignoring Baker v. Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985)_...

Mr. Van Hoften, States: "Second, Plaintiff asks whether public agencies should be allowed to use and maintain a public improvement for their surface water discharge and drainage systems in a manner which creates flooding of nearby neighboring private property.  (Pet. at 1., 7.)  However, the Court of Appeal did not find that the agencies in this case had used or maintained a public improvement: moreover, the plain holding of the Court of Appeal's decision was that the public agencies did not cause the flooding of Plaintiff's property." 

Mr. Van Hoften ignores the Testimony of Caltrans in front of Judge Martin J. Tangeman- P. 1506 of the Court Transcript of Caltrans Supervisor Fred Brebes.  Mr. Brebes States:  "Question: And did -- And did during this period of time, do you recall your maintenance crews working within the channel that leads from Highway 1 off of 13th Street?  Answer: Yes."  P. 1508 By Mr. Belsher:  So did your crews engage in this practice of using a loader to clean the channel that's depicted in that photograph, on more then one occasion?  Answer: Yeah -- Yes, I Would say Yes." Question: So was this part of the maintenance that you oversaw as Supervisor during those years,  '83 Through '88? Answer: Yes.  Question and did you continue that practice in the years until your retirement in 2002, to your knowledge?  Answer: I can't say.  Question: Well, we saw the photograph of 2000, for example. Answer:  UH-HUH Question: That's the one you're looking at.  You were a Superintendent at that time; Correct?  Answer: Yes"  P. 1509 By Mr. Belsher: Did you instruct your employees on maintenance activities with respect to the channel that's depicted in 1467?  Answer: YES.--------Question: So up to the years of 1996 when you became Superintendent, did you instruct workers under your supervision to clear the channel?  Answer: YES  Question: And that clearing went how far into the channel, to your recollection?  Answer: Well, in the case, it's probably about as far as that loader went, but that depends.  At certain times, I know that we have gone back to the culvert."  Page 1513 Answer: Um, I didn't know the Railroad --I Don't know the Railroad owns that property but.  Question: You didn't obtain permission from anybody at that point in time in terms of entering--" Answer: For 13th Street?  No."-------------Exhibits in exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery and allowed by Judge Martin J. Tangeman show Mr. Brebes being involved with Fountain Ave Flooding and photos of him raising State Highway 1 a foot in 2000!  These same photos above that San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman would not allow into evidence---Show Caltrans abating a flood danger as seen in the photo of the Caltrans loader inside this storm water drainage channel!
 Caltrans Derek S. Van Hoften request for California Case law in Bookout v. State California July 13, 2010 pdf... 


Mr Derek S. Van Hoften ignores Caltrans Statement to Judge Martin J. Tangeman also seen in exhibit # 579 photos withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo!  Derek S. Van Hoften states to the Second Appellate Court.  "Here, the opinion demonstrates that relatively consistent and static flooding does not constitute "maintaining possession or control " over the property or any portion of it, so as to trigger application of the five-year limitation."   "While the Court properly applied the existing law in this case, there is no published opinion demonstrating that this rule of law applies in the context of relatively consistent and static flooding where there has been no actual entry or physical construction by the public entity."   

  

Mr Derek S. Van Hoften of Caltrans states:  "Second, the opinion explains another existing rule of law: where the judgment is against the party who has the burden of proof, it is almost impossible for him to prevail on appeal by arguing the evidence compels a judgment in his favor."  Inverse Condemnation should now be herd by a Jury instead of a Judge with these statements by Caltrans!

 

Caltrans---Mr. McKinley's statement below showing Caltrans "physical construction by the public entity." changing the drainage stabilization of HWY 1. 13th, and Paso Robles Streets--per exhibit 579 and McKinley testimony shows drainage construction by a public entity "Caltrans"!

Answer: (P. 643) Yeah, I responded to a communication that our maintenance engineer received from Bill Bookout, that there was ponding, A ponding issue at the corners of 13th and Highway 1 and Paso Robles and Highway 1.  And so it was in response to that communication." Question:  Do you know approximately which side of the State highway this ponding occurred?  Answer: "It was on the East Side". " Page 645 “We reconstructed the pavement, so we put base and we put asphalt down.”  “I believe we put down half a foot of A.C., I believe.
Question: (P 653 Cross-Examination by Caltrans-Exhibit photos 579)  "And when you--It was your understanding that the reason this job -- You were asked to design this job was because the Plaintiff had complained about ponding on the East Side near his property, of State Route 1? Answer: Correct." --"Objection; Leading" 
The Court OVERRULED.  
Question: (P.. 658) “Mr. Mckinley, in that grinding crown removal project in 2003, do you recollect removing any portions of 13th Street or Paso Robles street?”  Answer:  “That was – Yeah, we went up to do our conforms, yes.”  Question:   Do you know about how far up those streets you went, if you can recollect?”  Answer:  “From the plans, I want – it seems to be around 70 –70 feet, I believe.  Seventy feet.”  Page 659 “We did adjust crowns on adjust crowns on 13th and Paso.

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan State after reviewing the testimony above from Caltrans--2002-Mr. McKinley " Answer: (P. 643) Yeah, I responded to a communication that our maintenance engineer received from Bill Bookout, that there was ponding, A ponding issue at the corners of 13th and Highway 1 and Paso Robles and Highway 1.  And so it was in response to that communication."----------- ”Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county 7 drainage study questionnaire returned by Bookout in July 2002. Bookout stated on the questionnaire that the area floods one foot or more once a year and that the flooding has damaged his inventory.
The County explained that it was unaware of the document at the time of discovery. It said that the questionnaire responses were summarized for inclusion in a drainage study, but they were not filed by name, address or location. The Railroad's counsel happened to find Bookout's response during Crowe's testimony. The County pointed out that Bookout must have been aware of the document because he submitted it to the County. The trial court found the failure to produce the document was not in bad faith, and refused to impose discovery sanctions."

This pdf file  County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal in regards to the Evidence  Withheld From Discovery involving their County Insurance. pdf    Shows how our California Court system now works in allowing evidence to be withheld from Discovery. The published California Case law Decision "Bookout v. State of California (2010) changes our Constitution!  Please review the names attached to these County of San Luis Obispo letters showing who was aware of this withholding of evidence!  The February 6, 2007 letter shows the names ( Clayton U. Hall---Jay A. Hieatt---Mark B. Connely---Linda D. Hurst, Stephanie A. Brown, Julie C. Grebel, Molly E. Thurmond, Paul E. Kremer---Written to Mauri McGuire Carl Warren & Company, Rita L. Neal and Debra A. Hossli, Risk Manager!

 

The Second Appellate Court in their July 28, 2010 published case law decision fail to talk about Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783.  As briefed and used by Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman.  The Appellate Court States:     "Bookout contends the trial court improperly applied a reasonableness test to determine liability. He points out that except for damage caused by public flood control projects, the test in inverse condemnation actions is strict liability. (Citing Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722, 753-754.)

But Bookout fails to point to anywhere in the record that the trial court applied the reasonableness test instead of strict liability. In any event, the court's ruling was based on the statute of limitations and failure to prove causation. The results are the same under the reasonableness test or strict liability. The defendants prevail."         

     The Second Appellate Court ignores Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. ”We conclude the critical inquiry is not whether the entire system was a public improvement, but rather whether the City acted reasonably in its maintenance and control over those portions of the drainage system it does own.” “Substantial cause-and-effect relationship” is enough for liability even for downstream flooding."  The Appellate Court ignores Caltrans ownership of the first four feet of the storm water drainage inlet and the OCSD ownership and control of their Well # 8 pipe inside this storm water drainage channel per exhibit # 1278-1337 and 1338 that Judge Martin J. Tangeman talks about on P. 7 of his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision!  The Appellate Court ignores exhibit # 1768 presented to the Second Appellate Court showing OCSD maintenance and drainage changes in December 2002 changeing the Statute of Limitations!  Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...   

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan are fully aware of Judge Martin J. Tangemans statements in his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision and the governments use of this storm water drainage system P. 11!  "In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of the drainage outfall from Well No. 8 In the vicinity of the culvert. While there was evidence of substantial amounts of water being discharged from well # 8, there was an absence of evidence that such discharges occurred contemporaneously with heavy rains and flooding problems."  

"Plaintiff also alleged that OCSD should be liable because its outfall pipe acted as a dam to capture debris in times of flooding, and/or that at times of discharge from its outfall pipe, debris may have been pushed into the culvert." "In each of these cases, the Court finds that the evidence is too speculative to support liability for inverse condemnation. No studies were undertaken or evidence provided showing the effect, if any, of either of these factors during times of flooding."

The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan are fully aware of Judge Martin J. Tangemans statements in his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision on P. 7 per photo exhibits # 1278-1337 and 1338 of this OCSD pipe directly inside the Railroad Culvert!  Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...

The Second Appellate Court July 28, 2010 published decision compleatly ignores Statute Of Limitations changes as seen in exhibit # 579 "Did you observe likely causes of the flooding, such as clogged culverts under roads, catch basins filled with dirt, no place for water to flow?"  On Exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo it was stated--- "Hwy 1 Not Adaquate drainage on Hwy 1 under the train track & Overlay from Caltrans in 2001 on Hwy 1" 

The Second Appellate Court Justice--Steven Z. Perren---Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthar Gilbert---Paul Coffee would not talk about these photos that went with exhibit # 579 that Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman did not feel were needed as evidence as he and Union Pacific Railroad stated "“And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” The Court States: “All Right”   In regards to these photos the County of San Luis Obispo asks on their Community Drainage and Flood Control Study Questionnaire---"Are there Any other comments regarding drainage and flooding that you would like to make?"  It  was weitten "Yes" showing these photos that Judge Martin J. Tangeman told the Railroad they did not have to include with exhibit # 579.  This prejudicial error shows Causation and no Date of Stabilization!   County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...  
    
The one Photo that Union Pacific RailRoad did Include in Exhibit # 579 shows that their is in Stabilization in this drainage system as stated on this photo exhibit " Pipeline in rail road culvert obstructin flow (Culvert Abuse) 13th Street & Highway 1 Mr. Bookout"  Exhibt # 1768 and 1756 backs up this statement showing no Date Of Stabilization with this OCSD drainage change since 1977!County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...  
 
RE: Statute of Limitations and Prejudicial Error in regards to evidence withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo Molly Thurmond, Esq. (SBN 104973)Exhibit #579 (Appendix 15) Prejudicial Error or Not? Photo/Statement Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo And Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All  Right" County of San Luis Obispo Causation in permits and drainage requirements on private property.  OCSD and Caltrans correcting 2002 drainage complaint problems in 2002/2003 as stated in exhibit #579 Complaint, Caltrans-McKinley Testomony P. 645 and (RA exhibit #1768) changing the Statute of Limitations!  Date of Stabilization! 
 
County photo documents withheld from discovery by County and Rail Road Exhibit # 579 showing flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 after Caltrans raised State Highway 1 as stated in document provided with County 2002 Drainage Study Questionnaire!  These photos where provided  December 2, 2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Date of StabilizationStabilization!

Why would a California Superior Court Judge allow partial evidence, exhibit # 579 to be withheld from discovery as stated in the Court Transcripts by Union Pacific Railroad and Judge Tangeman? “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” The Court States: “All Right”   Judge Tangeman after his August 5, 2010 Inverse Condemnation Decision States on P. 2117-2018 without acknowledging the photographs, regardoing other documents withheld from discovery. "I accept Mr. Belsher's argument these questionnaires where not available at that time.  They weren't available until July 30th."  "no fruther information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them." 

The Second Appellate Court Ruling June 28, 2010 Allows Caltrans to Raise and flood State Highway 1 --13th and Paso Robles Streets in Oceano California and then Grade and shovel debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel putting blame on a produce company for 1977 construction!  This ruling allows the United States government to discharge debris and well water into our United States drainage systems stating: "the nuisance or trespass alledged here is permanent."! 

California and United States Justices, Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor 

The Second Appellate Court of California has changed our California Case Law in Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. and Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783.   Court of Appeal Opinion: [PDF] Filed 6/28/10 Modified and certified for publication 7/28/10 (order attached)
   
Now in the publised decision Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation, government (Caltrans, OCSD) is allowed to fill in storm water drainage channels and dredge debris into storm water drainage systems as seen and talked about by Justice--Steven Z. Perren---Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthar Gilbert in their publised July 28, 2010 Decision!  Notice Photos talked about by the Second Appellate Court in their July 28, 2010 Inverse Condemnation decision!!

The Second Appellate Court States in their July 28, 2010 published decision in regards to these photos above "Bookout points to no findings of fact in his favor. Instead, he relies on over 500 photographs and videos showing the flooding, several hundred documents which he claims show each defendant exercised dominion and control over the drainage facilities, and the testimony of his expert engineer, Keith Crow. He believes the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming." 

This statement above by the Second Appellate Court affects every California resident and changes our California Case Law with the Second Appellate Courts published decision July 28, 2010 in Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation.  This decision now changes--Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. and Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783.  

The Videos below show what Judge Tangeman saw at trial showing the Oceano Community Service District Dredging their well # 8 water into this drainage system, as  he also saw other videos of Caltrans shoveling and grading debris into this storm water drainage channel.   Caltrans was Caught after trial continuing to shovel debris into this storm water drainage channel, affecting our public safety!        WHY?

County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George ...County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George  R. Rosenberger Exhibit #579--Glenn Priddy County Of San Luis Obispo Fix and their cost--Steve Price Caltrans responsibility to the Pacific Ocean...  As seen in these YOUTUBE videos!

The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has Stated in their August 5, 2008 Decision regarding Inverse Condemnation:  "Mr. Fry testified that any work undertaken by Cal Trans employees in the channel to help clear the channel were most likely undertaken solely as a "good neighbor" practice by a "conscientious employee”   
                                            Judge Tangeman believes that this drainage system has been Static since the Late 1970's????

January 2010 Flooding of State Highway 1 so that the Baughman property does not flood west of State Highway 1!!!!!
 
January 2010 California residents put into danger so that the west side of Oceano, Baughman property does not flood.
 
What was a good Business doing over $500,000.00 a year--Out of Business due to flooding!

Another Car stalled out in the flooded State Highway 1 that Judge Tangeman has stated this flooding can't be abated!!
 
Caltrans plowing through State Highway 1 while the Baughman property is not flooded as seen in Exhibit #579 withheld by County the County of San Luis Obispo.  This is the True Statement that was withheld from Discovery by the County showing what was happening before our State Highway 1 began flooding as seen today!
"We Own a home at 1519 Fountain Ave which is currently rented to Chuck Bachman. It floods every winter with up to a foot of water in the living room, causing Mr. Bachman to move to a Motel."
"Water At The Corner Of 13th/Paso Robles/And Highway 1 Runs (Drains) Under The Railroad Tracks Across Railroad Ave And Collects In The Area Highlighted In Yellow On The Reverse. Something Has To Be Done To Get That Water To The Lagoon Or South To The Ag Creek At The East End Of Airport Runway. The End Of Fountain Ave Floods Every Winter. Larry Baughman"
 
While the Baughman property is not flooding as seen the 2002 Questionnaire withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo

This person's life is put in danger for a flooding problem created by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obipo and the Oceano Community Service District that could be abated for only $43,295.00 as seen in Caltrans documents!  Exhibit # 1790!!

KSBY Channel 6 January 17, 2010 Inspecting the Oceano Drainage Channel.   KSBY 6 inspecting this drainage channel, It is seen that no Maintenance has been done to this drainage system since April Charlton of the Times Press Recorder had last inspected this drainage system November 26, 2008.   Caltrans still have their concrete bags in this system along with the OCSD Well # 8 PVC pipe. View what Caltrans had told the Regional Water Quality Control   Caltrans-D-5 Pete_Riegelhuth January 12, 2009 Statement to.RWQCB.PDF regarding their maintenance PDF.   

    

Later in the day when the rain begins; the State Highway begins to flood!

     
 January 17, 2010--The State Highway Patrol closing down State Highway 1 after Channel 6 had inspected this drainage system!
   
June 9, 2009 OCSD flooding the State Highway from the use of their Well # 8 inside this storm water drainage channel!-------

 

County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George ...County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George  R. Rosenberger Exhibit #579--Glenn Priddy County Of San Luis Obispo Fix and their cost--Steve Price Caltrans responsibility to the Pacific Ocean...  As seen in these YOUTUBE videos!

KCOY Channel 12 viewing the Maintenance of the Oceano Communities drainage channel in June 2009!  As The Oceano Community Service District discharges their Well # 8 water into this drainage system!
 
The Five Cities Times Press Recorder inspecting the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel Inlet before Caltrans is Caught November 26, 2008 shoveling Contaminated Storm Water Debris into this Drainge System???????

 
The Five Cities Times Press Recorder inspecting this OCSD Well # 8 Discharge pipe???????   
 
Oceano Storm Water Drainage channel inlet after Caltrans was caught November 26, 2008 shoveling debris
into this storm water drainage channel after the Five Cities Times Press Recorder reporter above had investigated
this Storm Water Drainage System!!!!!!
 
If Caltrans owns the first four feet of this drainage channel, why would they shovel
their debris into this storm water drainage channel inlet that they own??????????

When our California Constitutional Rights are taken away from us and our property is taken for a dangerous public use, as Caltrans raising a State Highway and then shoveling and Grading Storm Water Debris into a Storm Water Drainage Channel, it is our duty to make the public aware; especially when their public safety has been endangered! Please View your local Governments actions Caltrans and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention basin. According to the California Constitution, Article I, Section 19. “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.”Please View http://www.oceanonurseryflooding.blogspot.com/
   
Bookout v. State of California et. al Appeals work DocumentsUsing VALERA LYLES et al., v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., --- JAMES ARREOLA et al. v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY et al.,JAMES ARREOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.--- Skoumbas v. City Of Orinda1 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF ..., Cal.App.4th IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH bunchet al., )
  
"Judge Tangeman determined the flooding problem was "static" for several years prior to Plaintiff's purchase of his property. Plaintiff contends the flooding is continuous and can be abated. Plaintiff argues Defendants negligent maintenance of the drainage system increases the frequency and severity of the flooding. That is inconsistent with Judge Tangeman's determination that the primary culprit was POVE's improvements, rather than negligent maintenance of the drainage system. There was no showing that Union's operation of Well No. 8 contributed to the blockage. There was no showing of the County's responsibility for maintaining the drainage channel. There was no evidence that any accumulated debris in State's right of way contributed to the problems in the operation of the drainage system. County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance" 
  
   
This photo presented to Judge Tangeman is a Caltrans Supervisor shoveling debris into the Oceano Community's storm Water drainage channel.

Caltrans Supervision Shoveling Storm Water Debris into this Storm Water
Drainage system??????


This drainage problem will never stabilize until Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo, Oceano Community Service District and Union Pacific Railroad are held accountable for their drainage changes since Exhibit # 1756 dated April 21, 1983 and then Caltrans raising State Highway 1 in December 2000 knowing of exhibit # 1773 that could have abated a prior problem for only $36,000.00 after the Oceano Community Service Districts Contribution of $5,000.00!!!!!!!!


This is a E-mail sent to Senator Abel Maldonado, State Assembly Member Sam Blakslee and Local News Media January 22, 2010 after six days of our State Highway 1 flooding.  This E-Mail includes the whiteness that the County of San Of San Luis Obispo withheld from Discovery during trial with Exhibit # 579

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:58 AM
To: 'senator.Maldonado@sen.ca.gov'
Cc: 'assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov'; 'tweber@thetribunenews.com'; 'bcuddy@thetribunenews.com'; 'Blackburn@calcoastnews.com'; 'nwilson@thetribunenews.com'; 'news@ksby.com'; 'news12@kcoy.com'; 'April Charlton'; 'eslater@timespressrecorder.com'; 'econnolly@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'shredder@newtimesslo.com'; 'dsneed@thetribunenews.com'
Subject: All California Residents safety on Their State Highways!

 

January 22, 2010

 

Dear Senator Abel Maldonado and State Assembly Member Sam Blakeslee

 

All California News Media

 

Today, State Highway 1 in Oceano at 7 am is flooded again and closed for the sixth day in a row.  Caltrans Documents that have been previously provided to both of you and local news, media show that this flooding problem could be abated for $43,295.00!!!  Caltrans documents show their concern for flooding the west side of Oceano if they fix what was a different flooding problem in 1985 as they had signed contracts with OCSD and taken $5,000.00 from Oceano residents to fix what was a different drainage problem at this time.  Notice the photos below of Caltrans shoveling storm debris off of our State Highway 1 into the Oceano Community’s Storm Water Drainage Channel?

 

I ask that both of you “Senator Abel Maldonado and State Assembly Member Sam Blakeslee”, obtain the $43,295.00 dollars immediately for Caltrans  to correct the flooding and closing of our State Highway in Oceano, that we are seeing today since Caltrans began shoveling debris into this Storm Water Drainage channel as seen in video’s at www.oceanonurseryflooding.blogspot.com and Caltrans actions, talked about by the RWQCB in E-Mails with Caltrans! 

 

Attached above is public knowledge as seen in the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards communication with Caltrans e-mail.    Unfortunately, this problem now, needs to be immediately fixed!  Attached, below are the whiteness that have direct knowledge of what the drainage concerns where in Oceano in 2002 as read in Larry Baughman’s written drainage Questionnaire that was withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Baughman’s property has not flooded this week from the State of California storing this contaminated storm water on our, State Highway!   

 

I am now making both of you aware of Caltrans Statements at Trial as seen as www.oceanonursery.com and the documents and whiteness’s from Exhibit # 579 that had been withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo below.  I ask that both of you inform Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of Caltrans documents and maintenance in Oceano California!  

   <!--[endif]-->

Caltrans Stated at Trial regarding their drainage Maintenance Actions as seen Above.

“I’m not sure what they’re doing in this picture. It appears that they’re throwing dirt up on the bank at the base of the tree.” Question: “Is this anything related to the buildup of sediment at the mouth of the drainage channel?” Answer. “Well it’s more grass. Well, Yeah, sediment and grass.” Question: And where’s this material removed to when you engaged in this particular activity? Answer. “Based on the Mud behind me at the base of the tree, I would say we where throwing it up on the bank.” Question: So you were keeping it in the four feet that you consider to be Caltrans right-of-way? Answer. “YES” Question: And how often have you engaged – You or your staff engaged in the particular activity? Answer. “How often does it rain down there?” Question: Is it fairly often – Answer: “YES” Question: Based on the rainfall. Answer. “YES, just about every time it rains.”

 

These are the Documents letters of  whiteness, that where withheld from Discovery by The County Of San Luis Obispo and finally given to us in full on December 2, 2008 five months after our first trial with many depositions and whiteness testimony now being worthless.  This is a Large Prejudicial Error made by this Trial Court that should now become California Case Law

This is how Union Pacific Railroad admitted part of exhibit # 579 and how Judge Tangeman allowed evidence to be withheld from discovery as seen in their statements at trial! “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.”  Judge Tangeman-- The Court States: “All Right”

Property owner Larry Baughman an Ex- OCSD Director--1845 Casitas County Summery Statement #158 as stated by the County of San Luis Obispo "(Channel Between Railroad Street and Fountain Avenue Overgrown) in Published Drainage Study!

This is the true statement of Larry Baughman that had been withheld from Discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo Exhibit # 579, as discovered December 2, 2008 summarized by the County Of San Luis Obispo Above! Larry Baughman owner of 1519 Fountain Ave and Ex- OCSD Director State: "We Own a home at 1519 Fountain Ave which is currently rented to Chuck Bachman. It floods every winter with up to a foot of water in the living room, causing Mr. Bachman to move to a Motel."
"Water At The Corner Of 13th/Paso Robles/And Highway 1 Runs (Drains) Under The Railroad Tracks Across Railroad Ave And Collects In The Area Highlighted In Yellow On The Reverse. Something Has To Be Done To Get That Water To The Lagoon Or South To The Ag Creek At The East End Of Airport Runway. The End Of Fountain Ave Floods Every Winter. Larry Baughman"

County of San Luis Obispo and State of California Tort liability Drainage West of State Highway 1

Bill Tatum 1539 Fountain Ave. ---2001 flooding of Entire Street.  Sporadic some flooding every year

Larry A Baughman--Owner of 1519 Fountain Ave.  Statement house Floods every winter-- Ex-OCSD Director

Chuck Bachman--1519 and 1525 Fountain Ave.  Property on Fountain Floods every year with 6- 18 inch's of water.

Greg S. McGree-- Fountain Ave knowledge

Marquis Miller 548 Honolulu "Heavy Rains overflow lagoon"

Less Brown--652 Air Park Dr.

Jesser Esser--608 Air park Dr.  "Storm Water Drainage Ditch next to Oceano Airport"  "Years of neglect by SLO County"

John W. Carter 1778 Aloha Place

Mary Fernald 590 Honolulu St. Problems in last five years

David and Penny Villalba 567-571 Honolulu-- Every time it Rains house up to 6-12'

Raoul  Cristin  1810 Laguna Drive

Jan Dilo, Department of Public Services San Luis Obispo County

R. George Rosenberg, Deputy Director of General Services County Of San Luis Obispo

Cynthia M. Joselson/Dennis A.Huebner---Photos

Franklin C. Owen --Flooding in the Oceano Airport neighborhood.

Keith pelemeyer-Pismo State Beach maintenance Supervisor

 

In County of San Luis Obispo Files with drainage Studies and Color photos

September 7, 1990 San Luis Obispo County letter to Planning Department drainage in Oceano, Street improvements /Sidewalks

October 1, 1990 County Of San Luis Obispo letter to OCSD Water Run off and Drainage

October 17, 1990 Letter from John L. Wallace to OCSD Drainage in Oceano, Retention Basins, County Requirements

January 15, 1991 San Luis Obispo County letter to OCSD overall study of drainage patterns

March 15, 1991 San Luis Obispo County Letter to OCSD of Drainage nuisance problems and solutions by the County of Slo

May 3, 1991 OCSD letter to SLO County Analysis of OCSD Storm Drainage Problem regarding future County Building Permits

September 23, 1991 letter to Ruth Bracket Sidewalks

September 25, 1991 letter from Ruth Brackett not talking about Paso Robles and 13th streets

November 18, 1991Oceano Halcyon Advisory Committee minutes Drainage in Oceano not Paso Robles and 13th streets ally ways sidewalks

February 10, 1992 Draft letter Sidewalks

February 12, 1992 OCSD Meeting minutes Regarding Cienaga flooding County Responsibility Drainage Director Baughman.

March 11, 1992 OCSD letter regarding Flooding of Oceano Slough below State highway 1

February 10, 1993 OCSD Minutes 11 C. Video of flooding problem on highway 1

June 8, 1993 OCSD memorandum Meeting on Arroyo Grande outfall

February 23, 1994 OCSD meeting minutes Concerns West of State highway 1

February 25, 1994 San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District letter to Tony Boyd County Engineering Dept.

July 26, 1995 OCSD Meeting minutes Cienaga flooding problem Concern with railroad subdividing their property.  A problem at Paso Robles Street

January 10, 1997 OCSD Letter to planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo

October 8, 1997 OCSD meeting Minutes Drainage Problems Bill Bookout Specifically on Airpark and Fountain Ave.

May 13, 1998 OCSD meeting Minutes "Front and Cienaga Drainage problem

October 14, 1999  San Luis Obispo County letter and documents of concern to Union Pacific Railroad regarding Cienaga Drainage not Paso Robles St.

January 25, 1999 letter from OCSD to Khatchik h. Achadjian-issues-Flooding and Drainage channel behind Fountain Ave.

January 29, 1999 County Supervisor katcho Achadjian Letter to OCSD

February 5, 1999 OCSD letter to County regarding highway 1 Drainage issues not Paso Robles street.

November 10, 1999 Louis e. Wheeler letter to K.H. Achadjian

 

Whiteness Direct knowledge of State Highway 1 Drainage

Jay Jamison showing no flooding in 2002 with his knowledge of Highway 1.

Mark Hutctenreuther, knowledge of highway 1

Loni Silkwood, 1611 Paso Robles St Knowledge of highway 1--.

Jak Harris, knowledge of highway 1

Stanly Manel, knowledge of highway 1

Wilford P. Deschenes, knowledge of highway 1

R. Bliver, knowledge of highway 1

Jerry Bunin, 2280 Paso Robles St. Knowledge of highway 1--

Luis Wheeler, knowledge of highway 1 with photos taken of highway 1 and withheld from discovery including drainage in front of Oceano Market and Oceano Nursery.

Larry A Baughman--Owner of 1519 Fountain Ave. Ex OCSD Director with knowledge of drainage through County property.

"We Own a home at 1519 Fountain Ave which is currently rented to Chuck Bachman. It floods every winter with up to a foot of water in the living room, causing Mr. Bachman to move to a Motel."
"Water At The Corner Of 13th/Paso Robles/And Highway 1 Runs (Drains) Under The Railroad Tracks Across Railroad Ave And Collects In The Area Highlighted In Yellow On The Reverse. Something Has To Be Done To Get That Water To The Lagoon Or South To The Ag Creek At The East End Of Airport Runway. The End Of Fountain Ave Floods Every Winter. Larry Baughman"

Daniel Dena Neill--2640 Grell Ln.  Safety Concerns on Paso Robles Street.  Sidewalks and Alley ways paved with proper drainage.

Josue Astrero,Larry A Baughman--Knowledge of State Highway 1

Pat Clegg, Knowledge of State Highway 1

Sharon Collester, Knowledge of State Highway 1

Alan & Liane Barta, Knowledge of State Highway 1--2450 Paso Robles Street

Wando Cebulla, Knowledge of State Highway 1

Fred Cheda, 2231 Paso Robles Street--Knowledge of State Highway 1

Katherine B. Escobar 1627 Front Street, Knowledge of State Highway 1

Ben Harvey knowledge of Cal Trans changes to State Highway 1

Florence Welles 2431 Paso Robles Street.

Marylice Mankins

Eric Johnson Ally way knowledge

Herb West Knowledge of State Highway 1

Mark and Kristine Munro County Blaime wasting money on Study

Yvonne Putman 2591 Paso Robles--County Records

Robert W. Raymond, Knowledge of State Highway 1--poor county planning--County Eng. Photos

Charles E Royal 1561 16th between Warner and Wilmar Errosion problems

Chris & Linda Schroder 'The End of 13th st. at Cienaga

James &Throck Scudder --"Warner & 15th-water travels down 15th and Warner"

Dean Sorensean 561 Security Court 'Several inches to 1 foot depending on amount and length of rain

Ailo Stananage 547 Security Court-- County Liability

Dan Striciculerda 1541 Wilmar Ave.  "Flooding on Wilmar-between 14th &16th

Fred Van Slyke flooding at cienaga 7 front every time it rains

 

These County of San Luis Obispo Questionnaires can be seen at www.oceanonursery.com  

County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George ...County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George  R. Rosenberger Exhibit #579--Glenn Priddy County Of San Luis Obispo Fix and their cost--Steve Price Caltrans responsibility to the Pacific Ocean...  As seen in these YOUTUBE videos!

  

Caltrans-D-5 Pete_Riegelhuth E-Mail to.RWQCB.PDF regarding their maintenance PDF.  

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 7:09 PM
To: 'assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov'
Cc: 'tweber@thetribunenews.com'; 'econnolly@newtimesslo.com'; 'eslater@timespressrecorder.com'; 'Blackburn@calcoastnews.com'; 'nwilson@thetribunenews.com'; 'news@ksby.com'; 'news12@kcoy.com'; 'bcuddy@thetribunenews.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'dsneed@thetribunenews.com'; 'davecongalton@edbroadcasters.com'; 'Daniel Cooper'; 'jwasserman@sacbee.com'; 'Harvey Packard'; 'Roger Briggs'; 'senator.Maldonado@sen.ca.gov'; 'Melissa.Trowbridge@asm.ca.gov'
Subject: RE: From the office of Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee

 

January 26, 2010

 

Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee and Melissa Trowbridge Constituent Affairs

 

Thank You for responding to this very difficult situation.  I have attached our correspondence to my Web-Site www.oceanonursery.com  

 

State Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, can help by specifically, finding funding from the State of California of $43,295.00 dollars to once and for all abate this flooding problem in Oceano.  Caltrans drainage changes in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2006 that has impacted the residents of California and San Luis Obispo County; need to be properly corrected with a storm water retention basin on Union Pacific Railroad property.  Caltrans should no longer be allowed to use State Highway 1 and the Community of Oceano for Storm Water retention for a concern of flooding the Baughman property west of State Highway 1.  Today State Highway 1 has flooded again for the seventh time since January 17, 2010.

 

Caltrans, Testimony at Trial-Bookout V. the State of California, shows Caltrans shoveling and grading debris into this drainage channel that the Regional Water Quality Control Board viewed videos of and informed Caltrans that this was against the Caltrans NPDES Storm Water requirements. 

 

Please review the E-Mail from Caltrans above to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and this statement from Pete Riegelhuth of Caltrans to the Regional Water Quality Control Board as he states:

“Due to past litigation, the Department is no longer responsible or allowed to maintain the channel located off of the Caltrans right of way.   If you would like further information about the drainage situation and the maintenance effort at this location, which has a history beyond what can be detailed in an e-mail, please let me know so that I can arrange a meeting with Department staff familiar with the drainage challenges and restrictions at this site.

 

Respectfully,

 

Pete Riegelhuth”

 

It is time to make our State Highway 1 Safe again and Assemblyman’s Blakeslee’s help is appreciated.  The cost of this fix from State Highway 1 to Railroad Street is only $43,295.00 per Caltrans documents.  The fact that Caltrans feels that they are “No Longer Responsible or allowed to maintain the channel located off of the Caltrans right of way.” Affects all of our California residents!

 

Thanks again for myself and California residents.

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

From: Melissa.Trowbridge@asm.ca.gov [mailto:Melissa.Trowbridge@asm.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:07 PM
To: pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net
Subject: From the office of Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee

 

Hi Bill,

Just wanted to let you know that we have recieved all the correspondence that you have sent in regarding the Oceano Flooding.  Thank you for keeping us informed.  Please let me know if there is anything specific assistance that you would like from our office regarding this issue. 

Sincerely,

Melissa Trowbridge

Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee

Constituent Affairs

In a September 15, 1987 Department of Transportation Memorandum. “The State could raise the height of Highway one approximately one foot and leave both the County and the Oceano Community Services District the problem to solve on their own (P. Hom).”

Caltrans November 26, 2008 shoveling debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel????? WHY?

Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 PVC pipe installed into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage channel
Why Would a Superior Court Judge not see this as a drainage Problem??????

Judge Tangeman viewed this Caltrans 1967 photo showing the drainage path not changing to a pond on Railroad property

County documents withheld from discovery showing Caltrans raising State Highway 1 a foot, while maintaining the storm water drainage channel up to 2002.  Why would the County Of San Luis Obispo be allowed to withhold this evidence from Discovery and Trial?????
 
County documents withheld from discovery showing flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 after Caltrans raised State Highway 1.

Caltrans photos of drainage problems that they created on East Side of State Highway 1??????
Why would Caltrans Raise State Highway 1 and not account for drainage????
 
This is the Oceano Communities Well # 8 pipe that they use to discharge 2500 gallons of well water
a minute into this storm water drainage system.  How can this be legal in California???

Court Reporter’s Transcript on Appeal

Thursday, July 10, 2008 Volume II of IX

Direct Examination of Phil Davis OCSD

From the Court reporter transcript Thursday July 10, 2008 The San Luis Obispo Court heard the following testimony placing the OCSD pipe directly in the Railroads Storm Water Drainage Channel and not in the Vicinity as the Court had stated in their August 5, 2008 decision! Exhibit # 579 is tied directly into OCSD’s statements!

P. 383 Answer: “We run the well— Right now, we’re running about five or six day a week. And we just start it in the morning, so it goes through a cycle” –
Question. How much water is discharged out of the pipe each time that you do the procedure that you described?
Answer. “Approximately 2,500 Gallons per minute?” Question. And the rate at which this water is discharged is somewhere around 1,300 gallons per minute?
Answer. “Well, it starts out fast and gradually slow down until it stops. And when it stops, all the water is going into the system.”P. 385 Question: Are you aware of any permission sought by the district, itself for operating this pipe?
Answer: “Other then the Health Department, I don't know of any."
P.386 by Mr. Belsher: Thirteen thirty-six and 1337, is this the same discharge pipe we discussed or saw in the previous photograph, only a different configuration?
Answer. Yes.
Question: And did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert that’s depicted there?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And this picture dated 2002, so does that seem as if that was the state of the – to your recollection, That the pipe was projecting into the culvert as of 2002?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And 1338 is another example of the pipe  extended into the culvert. Thirteen thirty nine, is this an OCSD employee? Answer. “I believe it is.”
Question: And I note that the pipe now is cut back from the entrance to culvert?
Answer: “That’s correct.”
Question: And is that an action which you and your staff took in 2002?
Answer. “YES”

 
The Oceano Community Service District use of this storm water drainage channel affecting public health and safety!!!
Page 390 July 10, 2008 Testimony by OCSD Employee see photo above.
Question.  Okay. Now, this is a picture, 1396, of you inspecting the entrance to the 20-inch culvert; correct?
Answer. UH-UH.
Question. Are you concerned at all that the operation of this pipe could blow leaves and other debris into the pipe during its operation?
Answer. Um, well we wanted to check and make sure it didn't happen.
Question. So what's your observation?
Answer. We just look through the culvert. If you could see a culvert going a hundred feet, or whatever it goes, well it is fine. Page 391.Question. And did you observe debris blowing into this pipe on occasion?
Answer. “Blowing into it.”
Question from the operation of the discharge pipe?
Answer. No
Question Do you have any maintenance plan for the channel or the culvert with respect to debris?
Answer. NO, WE DO NOT.”


Court Reporter’s Transcript to be used on Appeal

Wednesday, July 9, 2008 Volume I IX 

It is important that the San Luis Obispo County Residents understand the loss of our Constitutional Rights with Judge Tangemans August 5, 2008 Superior Court Decision that affects all trial court decisions in California if recent California Case Law has no merit!

This is the Beginning or this Inverse Condemnation trial that the Trial Court choose not to address the Strict Liability presented to the trial court from the beginning of trial!

Page 4. Mr. Belsher: This morning we filed an amended trial brief just focused on the Inverse Condemnation.  It’s pretty much the same as the original trial brief. It’s pared down. Page 5. The Court: “And here’s the Plaintiff’s Supplemental Trial Brief.”

The Trial Court erred in their decision ignoring Arreola v. Monterey as stated to the trial court from opening statements! Page 18-19. “In 1983 OCSD wrote a letter to the parties here, saying, “We don’t know who should maintain this channel. So that we’re writing you this letter to let you know we’re going to dump water in there.” “That’s been the attitude of all the parties. It’s nobody’s responsibility.” “The only thing we’re sure of is that in the world of Inverse Condemnation, it’s Strict Liability if you use somebody’s property to satisfy your drainage system needs, and that’s what’s happened here.”

“  
"There’s some argument, your honor, by the County, and I think by the Railroad, that some standard of reasonableness applies. We have briefed this issue to you in the Trial Brief. There’s no Reasonableness Standard. This is a strict Liability case. You only need to read Arreola, the case cited to you, to understand that.”

“And so the crux of this case is that these four parties have determined that it’s cheaper, easier, better to use Oceano Nursery as a detention basin than actually solving this problem. That’s a classic case of Inverse Condemnation, for which all four of these Defendants are liable.”  “Thank You, Your Honor.”

 

The Court: All right. Who wants to argue first on behalf of the defendants?

Page 20 County of San Luis Obispo opening statement: “There have been hundreds of storms between 1985 and 2004, none of which flooded the plaintiff’s property.”

Page 20 Oceano Community Service District. Mr. Daner: “Your honor, Adam Daner on behalf of the Oceano Community Service District.” “We also join in the Motion for Nonsuit. The additional ground is that in the opening statement, there’s been no evidence referred to of an overall public improvement such as to bring with it inverse condemnation liability. In light of that , and also with incorporating the arguments of previous counsel already, we also move for nonsuit.” Thank You.”
 
Page 21 The Court: Your argument is there’s no evidence of public improvement which have contributed to the –Which have been a substantial factor in contributing to this –These flooding events by OCSD?

 Page 21 OCSD Mr. Daner States: “Correct, your honor. It’s our position that the only evidence is that the area in question is a natural water course and pursuant to the City of Locklin case, which we believe governs this action, there’s no citing of a public improvement such as to cause any liability on behalf of any of the public entities here today.” 

  
Page 26-27 the Court acknowledges that this is not a natural drainage channel. The Court: “What was moved in the 1960’s?” Mr. Belsher: “The inlet to the—off of Highway 1.” The Court: “The drainage channel marked on the map that you’ve shown me?” Mr. Belsher: “Exactly. This channel formerly entered at this location, and it was moved in the sixties to this location. So this is all in concert. This is part of the Caltrans Right-of-Way, including three to four feet of area here alongside the –Well, this is a denoted Right-of-Way. So a few feet inside the pavement is the Caltrans Right-Of-Way. I believe that’s undisputed. They may dispute whether the drainage channel was moved or not, but we have witnesses that speak to that this afternoon.”

Page 29. Oceano Community Service District Mr. Daner States: “Your Honor, if I might, in terms of your list of cases to look at? Locklin v. City of Lafayette, (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327 is the leading case in both my brief, as well as the County’s brief, in terms of our previous trial briefs and their supplemental trial brief, what we believe is the controlling California Supreme Court Law.”
  
Page 29. The Court: “ And I‘ve read those. I don’t mean to by omission neglect all the cases that I’ve read, but I was focusing in particular on this argument which I had not previously focused in on, and that is, the Railroad – The basis for the railroad’s liability in inverse Condemnation; and therefore , the Cantu, the Breidert Cases, City of Manhattan Beach and these arguments. I have read Locklin at least three times.”

Page 30. The Court: “I have not yet read Arreola. I understand the argument that’s going on as to strict liability versus standard of reasonableness, in addition to the other arguments raised in Locklin in terms of substantial factor and appointment, Causation. I understand the argument with regard to specific events or nonspecific events. I was just meaning to focus in on Mr. Cregger’s specific arguments that I have not yet read anything on.”

Page 30. The County brings up Arreola that Judge Tangeman did not site in his decision? Ms. Thurmond: “Your Honor, while you’re looking at those cases, the Plaintiff’s supplemental Trial Brief does raise a new issue, the strict liability versus reasonableness.”

The Court: “And Arreola Case.”

Mrs. Thurmond: And Arreola, -- this has just come up. But if – If we’re going to use strict liability, there cannot be a drainage system. And then – so we’ve got to eliminate all the references and all the discussions about the drainage system because strict liability does not apply to a drainage system.”

“On the other Hand, if you’ve got a drainage system, you don’t have strict liability.  You’ve got the rule of reason. So that is – That just came up this morning. But if we’re going to be reading cases and arguing anything about cases that have come up, and Arreola does – And Locklin both do address that, as does Paterno and Belair. I mean, they all do, so”

Page 31 The Court: I understand those arguments. We’re going to get to those arguments.”

The San Luis Obispo Superior Court, September 12, 2008 changes their statements in their August 5, 2008 decision as they State in their final Decision. Page 2118 September 12, 2008

“The Court will acknowledge that I did not address all of the issues in the supplemental briefs and the reason for that was simply this: 631.8 is directed towards the issue as to weather there is a basis for dismissal on any several alternate grounds. Some of the issues I was not prepared to grant judgment on until I heard the defendant’s case. Some of the issues I was ready without the defendant’s case, those are the issues I address in the 631.8 ruling. So I’m going to deny the motion for new trial. I will deny the motion for reconsideration.”
The San Luis Superior Court had stated in their August 5, 2008 decision P. 2

This matter came for trial on July 9, 2008. Numerous witnesses testified and hundreds of exhibits were received in evidence. At the conclusion of Plaintiffs case, defendants, and each of them, made oral motions for judgment. After hearing arguments from counsel, the Court requested supplemental briefing on the statute of limitations, as well as Plaintiffs argument that Defendants had acquired certain property rights under the doctrine of prescriptive easements.”

Written decision August 5, 2008? “NOW, AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN THIS MATTER IN PLAINTIFFS CASE-IN-CHIEF AND, IN ADDITION, THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF, THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, AND THE PRE-TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL BRIEFS FILED BY THE PARTIES, THE COURT NOW RULES AS FOLLOWS.”  “DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS ARE GOVERNED BY CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 631.8”

Prejudicial Error by the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice! The Trial Court would not comment or cite Arreola v. Monterey in their August 5, 2008 decision that now affects the Public Health and Safety of all San Luis Obispo County residents from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean!

Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. “We conclude that in order to prove the type of governmental conduct that will support liability in inverse condemnation it is enough to show that the entity was aware of the risk posed by its public improvement and deliberately chose a course of action – or inaction – in the face of that known risk.” “Knowing that failure to properly maintain the Project channel posed a significant risk of flooding, Counties nevertheless permitted the channel to deteriorate over a long period of years by failing to take effective action to overcome the fiscal, regulatory, and environmental impediments to keeping the Project channel clear. This is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding of a deliberate and unreasonable plan of maintenance.” State diversion or obstruction of surface water onto land “not historically subject to flooding” is not protected by reasonableness rule, but results in strict liability.

Porter Scott, Terence j. Cassidy, SBN 99189-Thomas L. Riordan SBN 104827 the San Luis Obispo County Attorney's does not mention, Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. in their Respondents Breif, nor does Caltrans, OCSD or Union Pacific Railroad?

JAMES ARREOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY et al., Defendants and Appellants. [And five other cases.

[FN*] ]

No. H021339.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

June 25, 2002.

FN* Baeza v. County of Monterey (No. 106592); Calcote v. County of Monterey (No.

106782); Clint Miller Farms, Inc. v. County of Monterey (No. 106829); Phoenix

Assurance Co. v. County of Monterey (No. 107040); Allendale Mutual Ins. Co. v. County

of Monterey (No. 107041).

SUMMARY

Individuals who had suffered property damage brought an action against the state, a county and its flood control and water conservation district, and a second county and its water resources agency, seeking damages in inverse condemnation, and tort damages for nuisance, dangerous condition of public property, and negligence, arising from flood damage caused when a river levee project failed during a heavy rainstorm and the flood waters were further obstructed by a state highway. Plaintiffs alleged that the flooding occurred due to reduced water capacity in the levee project channel, caused by the failure of the county defendants to keep that channel clear, and that the state defendant failed to design the highway with adequate provision for flooding. The jury found all defendants liable on the tort claims, and the court found all defendants liable on the inverse condemnation claims and entered a judgment for plaintiffs. (Superior Court of Monterey County, Nos. 105661, 106592, 106782, 106829, 107040 and 107041, Robert

A. O'Farrell, Judge.)

The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the trial court properly found the county defendants were liable to plaintiffs in inverse condemnation based on their failure to properly maintain the levee project, since their knowing failure to clear the project channel, in the face of repeated warnings and complaints, was not mere negligent execution of a reasonable maintenance plan, but rather a long-term failure to mitigate a known danger. The court held that the trial court did not err in defining the levee project's water capacity, and that substantial expert evidence supported the jury's finding, pertinent to plaintiffs' tort claims against the county defendants, that peak flows during the storm did not exceed the project's design capacity. The *723 court held that the trial court did not err in finding the state defendant liable in inverse condemnation based on its unreasonable design of the highway, which failed to account for a foreseeable flood, and that design immunity (Gov. Code, § 830.6) failed to provide this defendant with a defense to plaintiffs' tort claims. The court held that both the county defendant and its water resources agency were properly found liable to plaintiffs, since the county was directly, and not derivatively, liable. (Opinion by Premo, Acting P. J., with Elia and Wunderlich, JJ., concurring.)

Porter Scott, the Attorneys for the County of San Luis Obispo on Page 24 of their Appellate Breif to the Appellate Court state:  "The County did not, nor could it manage and control wheather POVE kept its junction box free of debris or drained its pond to keep storm water from backing up."  This photo was taken by Caltrans before the County of San Luis Obispo required POVE to raise this pond by putting a berm around this pond along with a fence, thus showing the County causeing the flooding we are seeing today!

This shows that the County of San Luis Obispo had control of the UP property as Porter Scott states:  "Likewise, the County was not in control of UP private property along or under its railroad tracks."                                                       

 

This photo was taken by Caltrans before the County of San Luis Obispo required POVE to raise this pond by putting a berm around this pond along with a fence, thus showing the County causeing the flooding we are seeing today!This shows that the County of San Luis Obispo had control of the UP property as  

 Notice the pipe coming into this pond? And then the picture below of OCSD removing the debris that they had dredged into this pond?

Porter Scott, the Attorneys for the County of San Luis Obispo on Page 30 "The junction box, drainage channel and culvert under the railroad tracks have all been in existence for the past 30 years.  The flooding is a permanent nuisance."  It would appear from these photos that if the County would remove their requirement of raising this pond then this flooding would no longer be PERMANENT!  The County Permited this pond exhibit 1875 in County permits.  They then required the oulet of this pond raised!


Who is responsible for this Railroad Pipe and this debris pushed into this Pipe by the OCSD Well # 8 pipe daily?

Why would the Oceano Community Service District be allowed to dredge debris into this storm water drainage system?????  If only the News Media could ask this question!!!!!!!!

Where did this Debris come from?????

Why is Caltrans grading debris into this storm water drainage channel????

Why would Caltrans at 3:Am in the morning grade debris into this storm water drainage system
Why would Caltrans not remove this debris from a State Highway?????

Why is Caltrans Shoveling Storm Debris into this drainage System???????

Why does my Business Property have to be used to store contaminated storm water and debris???????


Why would Caltrans use this State Highway for Storm Water Retention??????

Why is the Railroad removing these concrete bags that Caltrans had installed at the Railroads 24 inch drainage inlet pipe????

Notice the debris on the bank of the drainage channel???

Why does my business property have to be used for a storm water retention pond?????


State Highway 1 that the San Luis Obispo Court has ruled the flooding cannot be abated by Caltrans,
County of San Luis Obispo, Union Pacific Railroad or The Oceano Community Service District????
 
Why Can't this State Highway 1 be abated????????

Why would Caltrans Shovel debris into this Storm Water Drainage Channel?????

Why would Caltrans continue to shovel storm water debris into this storm water drainage channel
After Judge Tangeman's August 5, 2008 decision that the flooding of State Highway 1 cannot be abated byCaltrans????
 
Why would the Oceano Community Service District be allowed to install this Well # 8 PVC pipe in a
Storm Water drainage channel????
 
I once had a good business in Oceano California!!!!!!!!!

Why would the County of San luis Obispo not be responsible for their drainage changes as seen in this 1939 photo?

THE OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
Oceano Community Service District has been involved in drainage since forming their district in 1980; building their buildings and district well sites; not using OCSD property for onsite storm water drainage detention and retention, instead making a deal and paying Cal Trans in 1985 to dispose of their water along with Cal Trans water. The Community Service District was informed by Southern Pacific Railroad on April 29, 1983 of the intended purpose of their railroad inlet and outlet stating. “It would appear that the channel mentioned in your letter was probably created to handle storm water runoff, and not the purpose to which you now intend to utilize it.”

These photos show the Oceano Community Service District 6 inch PVC pipe ran directly into the Railroads intended use of the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel as OCSD was informed by the Railroad in 1983 of the Railroads intended use of this Storm Water Runoff System This pipe was installed as "A blow-off system is required on any large well that pumps water directly into the water system. The purpose of a blow-off system is to prevent a shock(water hammer to the system when a large well starts and stops." This system as stated by OCSD on June 7, 2005 pumps "( approximately 2500 gallons during start up and approximately 2000 gallons during shut down)."


OCSD realizing for the first time in December 2002 of a potential problem that they had created with their well blow off system cut five feet off of their previous PVC pipe drainage change as stated "I had Dan saw off the 6 inch pipe and end it 5 feet in front of the curlvert so that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrance to the curlvert." This came from OCSD daily logs dated December 20, 2002. This un-enginered drainage change/improvement? 'on going construction' has caused the Railroad drainage system to finally stop working as OCSD now dredges debris into the Railroad pipe plugging the RR drainage pipe inside. This shows that no Stabilization is able to occur with OCSD ongoing drainage changes. OCSD has continually changed this system since 1984 knowing of soil erosion



In 2005 after flooding in 2004 and then major flooding January 3, 2005 OCSD again weed abated the Railroad property, however they chose to leave their 6 inch PVC pipe directly in the Railroads intended use of this channel for Storm Water runoff. Notice the old metal pipe that OCSD uncoverd left in the drainage channel. OCSD was aware of how sedimentation/erosion works from their June 7, 2005 institutional recollection letter about the installation of the six-inch well blow off line at Well # 8

With this cleaning of the drainage channel and OCSD useing Arroyo Grande equipment and personell to fully dredge out the Railroads drainage system, the flooding stopped for the rest of 2005. For the rest of the year many rains came and washed debris off of Highway 1 into the drainage channel without fruther clean-up later in the year by OCSD. As stated in the OCSD june 7, 2005 letter "During the Summer months (dry season) the well is normally operated once a day." This would be 4500 gallons of water and debris dredged into the RR drainage system daily!

At the Jaunuary 10, 2005 OCSD video taped meeting with the County and Cal Trans present regarding the OCSD pvc pipe in the community's storm water drainage channel, OCSD States "that issue is being addressed." OCSD has continued to ignore this pipe in the community's storm water drainage channel. This pipe is not in the vicinity of this drainage channel it is in the community's storm water drainage channel!

Notice, how the PVC pipe blocks debris at the Railroads drainage inlet pipe and that OCSD was not able in their weed abatement to remove the sedimentation around their pipe as we had seen previously a Cal Trans photo of the drainage channel cleaned without the OCSD pipe blocking debris in the drainage channel. This photo was taken in January 2006 after the whorst ever flooding of Highway 1 since 2004 and 2005 and shows the metal pipe that OCSD had previously uncoverd and left blocking the Railroads intended use of this storm water drainage system. The debris field in this flood went another 400 feet north past this blockage. As you can see from these photos with the OCSD PVC pipe now cut five feet short of the Railroad inlet any time OCSD operates there Well # 8 they are going to dredge debris into the Railroads intended use of theirs and the Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel and Railroad drainage pipe.

Notice the debris after a rain storm washed directly in front of OCSD Well # 8 PVC pipe that comes from under Highway 1 directly into the communities Storm Water Drainage Channel.

Oceano Community Service District well # 8 running and pusing debris into Railroads drainage inlet in 2004 in the middle of summer after the OCSD 2004 weed abatement of the railroad property in which they left the debris on the ground for errosion control as they stated to the newspaper. This photo as seen of OCSD dredging debris and water into the Railroads pipe goes against the December 20, 2002 Daily log of OCSD stating "I Had Dan saw off the 6 inch pipe and end it 5 feet in front of the curlvert so that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrence to the culvert."

Debris dredged into Railroad pipe from OCSD on opposite end from RR inlet.


This is more of the debris left on the ground in the OCSD 2004 weed abatement while the Community's Storm Water Drainge Channel fills up with water from Well # 8 running having already clogged the Railroad pipe. Notice the stumps from trees cut down by OCSD. In the 2005 weed abatement photos above OCSD had these Stumps removed.
OCSD By actually doing maintanence to the Railroads pipe and the POVE pipe have shown in there daily log January 3, 2005 that the flooding of Highway 1 and my property can be stopped with just doing maintanence of unclogging blockages in the Railroads and POVE pipes from OCSD dredgeing debris into this drainage system all year!

The Oceano Community Service District in the mid 80’s had installed a well on the east side of Highway 1 and then ran a 6 inch well blow off line under Highway 1 directly into the Railroad’s drainage inlet. This pipe today causes sedimentation and debris to build-up especially from OCSD weed abatement practices in 2004 and 2005 of leaving debris on the ground for erosion control?

The Photos below show OCSD running their Well and dredgeing debris into the Railroads intended use of there drainage system. The Railroad has allowed OCSD to do this going against the Railroads own advice.
This photo was taken at the same time with the Railroads drainage pipe clogged OCSD water had no other place to go other then flooding Highway 1. This is more water then 4500 gallons!
Notice, from this photo the true sag in Highway 1 where a previous drainage channel once left Highway 1, also notice the Cal Trans light pole and tree in their Right-Away! All of this water is from OCSD running their Well #8!These are OCSD employees only shoveling debris to the edges of the drainage channel, without removeing this debris from the Railroads drainage channel.
Notice the PVC pipe that OCSD Ignores and where they are shoveling this debris!
OCSD maintaining debris that they had dredged into the railroads drainage pipe system. This compacts this drainage system with 4500 gallons of water daily! The Debris on the ground to the right was left from the OCSD 2004 weed abatement for what they said was errosion control.



UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD/SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

Union Pacific Railroad/Southern Pacifc owned the inlet and outlets for the Oceano Community’s drainage in the late seventies and mid nineties and allowed their tenant Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange after recieving building permits from the County Of San Luis Obispo to build over the railroad’s own intended purpose of their railroad inlet and outlet. The Drainage system traveled the same direction as seen in the 1962 aerial photo proviously above. They were aware of the Oceano Community Service District 2004 weed abatement and the debris left on the ground from this weed abatement for erosion control in 2004 by OCSD as they were billed in 2004 and 2005 for weed abatement and later debris removal. Southern Pacific railroad contacted OCSD in 1983 regarding drainage issues and the intended use of the drainage channel on Southern Pacific property.

August 8, 1985 Cal Trans Communicated with Southern Pacific RR on regarding Cal Trans plans to change the drainage system going under Southern Pacifics RR tracks.

May 12, 1986 Southern Pacific RR wrote Cal Trans stating that they had no objection to Cal Trans making drainage changes under their tracks.

July 23, 1986 Cal Trans wrote Southern Pacific RR to attempt to get the Rail Road to enter into a service contract in which Cal Trans and OCSD would pay $12,000.00 and the railroad would construct and maintain the new culvert. Southern Pacific wrote back to Cal Trans February 17, 1987 having no objection to allow the state to make drainage changes however expecting to be reimbursed for RR inspection costs concerning this project.

September 25, 1987 Cal Trans wrote the County Of San Luis Obispo showing the full cost for the Railroads proposed drainage solution to be$15,070.00 and a grand total to fix this whole drainage system after previously taking $5,000.00 from Oceano residents to be $43,295.00

November 28. 1989 Frank M. Lentz of Cal Trans in a Memorandum to Robert j. Derea Cal Trans Legal Division. Talks about a July 1988 tenative plan to take legal action against Southern Pacific Railroad

May 20, 1992 Steve Hendrickson of Cal Trans writes in a Cal Trans Memorandum of a drainage project was to be funded by Cal Trans, Oceano Community Service District, San luis Obispo County and the Railroad. Cal Trans the n writes. "The railroad was unwilling to financially participate in this project, and as a result certain legal questions were raised. Downstream property owners opposed to this project could hold the particpating agencies responsible."

'To Date, no direction has been recieved from our legal division nor has the railroad or it's lessee proposed a solution."

These are Railroad employees maintaining and working on their drainage system in 2007 the debris that they shoveld onto their bank is still there today! Notice the OCSD pipe higher then their debris removal?
The Concrete Bag that the Railroad employee is being directed to remove was installed to improve the community's drainage system by Cal Trans in December 2002. This Concrete bag was then left in the Railroads drainage channel by Railrod employees.



Again OCSD 2005 Weed abatement photo below with POVE maintenence Supervisor above in 2004/2005 viewing OCSD PVC pipe blocking drainage channel. This Pipe as OCSD wrote June 7, 2005 pumps 4500 gallons of water daily. Notice the debris that goes with this 4500 gallons of water daily!

In 1995 the Railroad knew of drainage problems from their property from Cal Trans however, they decided to start selling their properties in Oceano for a profit and sold POVE their property for a profit at which time drainage easements were recorded with the County of San Luis Obispo along Highway 1 giving Cal Trans an additional use of 10 feet Offer Of Dedication For Road And Drainage Purposes. The only use Cal Trans has taken of their property since is removing a retaining wall and allowing their debris to go into State Highway 1 and then shovel and plow this debris into the Oceano Communities’ Storm Water Drainage Channel.

Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange before purchasing their property from Southern Pacific Railroad was allowed by the County Of San Luis Obispo to build over the Community’s Storm Water Drainage outlet with the County Of San Luis Obispo knowing of the County Airport changes made downstream that had caused flooding on Fountain Ave in which the County Of San Luis Obispo had previously been sued for!

On December 26, 1984 a County Building inspector notified POVE that their floor drain system that drains into a sump and then is pumped into an onsite retention basin is not permissible as per the Uniform Plumbing Code sections 302 and 303.

On December 13, 1984 the Oceano Community Service District Notified the County that Regarding POVE’s Reconstruction they would “not allow wash water from the POVE vegetables or floor wash water to enter into its sanitary sewer system.”

Today the County of San Luis Obispo, Cal Trans, Oceano Community Service District, Union Pacific Railroad all use the retention holding basin for their Storm Water Runoff mixed with POVE’S Vegetable Wash Wastewater and Sludge.

The Regionial Water Quality Control Board is involved in this drainage system from a March 27, 1985 letter from the County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Health involveing the Regional Water Quality Control Board and their knowledge and use of this improper drainage system: Documents from the RWQCB show POVE was to “Submit an application, to the RWQCB for a waste discharge permit.” One has not been found to date. A May 24, 1985 Cal Trans letter regarding the RWQCB acknowledges the wastewater from the POVE vegetable washer should be separate from Highway Drainage. A State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Report July 11, 1997 states that the POVE retention pond is used primarily for storm runoff from nearby streets.

The County’s 2003 drainage documents and the 2002 drainage Questionaires withheld from Discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo show the County’s concerns downstream and that the fact that the County collects rental income of approximately $30,000.00 per year down stream. This County property downstream could and should be used to store the County’s, Railroads, Oceano Community Service District and Cal Trans Storm Water Runoff, making Highway 1 safe again!

The Photos of Oceano Market/Gas Station flooded along with highway 1 closed, and my property, should be a concern to the County and Cal Trans. It is time for the County and Cal Trans to correct the problems that they have created.

 Cal Trans documents written to the County of San Luis Obispo dated September 25, 1987 showed a fix to the small drainage problem at the time before OCSD had to install their 6 inch PVC pipe directly into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage System because Cal Trans had reneged on their agreement with OCSD.
This fix would would have only cost the County, Cal Trans and the Railroad only $43,295.00 to fix. The Oceano Community Service District had already contributed $5,000.00 for their share of this fix rather then use their property for the use of their Well Discharge and Storm Water Retention! It is unfortunate that this total drainage fix would have only cost $48,295.00 for all the parties involved
The New Times--San Luis Obispo
The San Luis Obispo Tribune
The Five Cities Times Press Recorder
Wll soon be investigating this OCSD Well # 8 Pipe????
Oceano Train De-Railment ??

Copyright 2021. Oceano Nursery. All rights reserved.
Website Builder