Inverse Condemnation In California

                    ABC News, CBS News, NBC, News, Fox News

Inverse Condemnation, California Supreme Court Constitution Appeal for the inverse condemnation in Oceano California by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo, Union Pacific Railroad and the Oceano Community Service District!   San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman has allowed the County of San Luis Obispo to withhold evidence from discovery and trial.  He States September 12, 2008 in a request for rehearing:     "No further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them." "But I think it's imcumbent to demonstrate to the court exactly which factual assertation and which witness would actually produce evidence which would result in a basis for a new trial."

Please review the video evidence and photos below, showing that the "
Exchange" is not responsible for the flooding of State Highway 1!

The County of San Luis Obispo in their "Answer To Petition For Review" by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 shows the California Supreme Court why this review is necessary as the County of San Luis Obispo explains on P. 5 "The Oceano Community Service District (District) owns a water well.  From time to time, the well discharges water into the drainage channel that leads to the culvert under the rail bed."  (RT Vol. 5:1265-1266)"
Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno video viewed by Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1 
PLEASE REVIEW THE VIDEOS PRESENTED TO JUDGE MARTIN J. TANGEMAN OF OCSD DISCHARGEING FROM THEIR WELL # 8 PER EXHIBITS # 1768 AND # 579!   THIS ACTION GOES AGAINST RECENT CALIFORNIA CASE LAW "SKOUMBAS V. CITY OF ORINDA" 
Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard  1
The County of San Luis Obispo acknowledges "No Date Of Stabilization" the construction permitted in the drainage channel by the County, allowing the OCSD Well # 8 discharge Pipe installed into this drainage culvert!  (Per Davis Testimony!)  The County States:  "Davis's daily log for that year makes referance to a meeting with Bookout on December 20, 2002.  (RT Vol. 2:402) Bookout took a picture of the pipe going into the drainage channel in the aftermath of a rain event in 2002."  The County States:  "The picture included a District employee. (RT Vol. 2:403) This photo shows No Date of Stabilization and that OCSD and Caltrans had not properly corrected the complaint in Exhibit # 579!  Thus showing that the partial  use of Exhibit # 579 was a predjudicial Error in now California Case Law "Bookout v. State of California!"


 Chief Justice Ronald M. George-Caltrans and County showing that the flooding can be abated! 
The County LIES about Testomony by Dan Sutton from POVE as Dan had stated  02-03 NOT 2000!  The County mentions the Davis daily logs(exhibit #1768) that shows No Date of Stabilization!

Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter
PLEASE REVIEW THE VIDEO PRESENTED TO JUDGE MARTIN J. TANGEMAN OF OCSD DISCHARGE FROM WELL # 8 PER EXHIBITS # 1768 AND # 579!   THIS ACTION GOES AGAINST RECENT CALIFORNIA CASE LAW "SKOUMBAS V. CITY OF ORINDA" 
      Associate Justice Ming W. Chin  The Oceano Community Service District photos of their use of the storm water drainage channel as presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman! 

    The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert  State on P. 6 and 7 of their July 28, 2010 published California Case law Decision; ignoring documents from Brebes and Davis prior to State Highway 1 flooding--(Fountain Ave-Airpark Dr)!   "Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county 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 websites that I have launched are now seen nationally on the internet.  This is probably the first time in U.S. history that a case with the overwhelming evidence (Testimony, State, County, OCSD documents, Videos, Photos, Evidence withheld form discovery) presented to a Superior Court is now seen on so many websites and on YOUTUBE showing the mistakes made by a Superior Court? The Statements made by the Court after trial will make national news and very interesting California Case Law with the Supreme Courts decision as to if this is now legal in the State of California!

    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.governorabelmaldonado.com

    www.californiasupremecourt.co

    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 exhibits/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 drainage systems as seen in these exhibit photos!   Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf...

    The Second Appellate in their published decision July 28, 2010 allows inverse condemnation by Caltrans drainage changes since December 2000 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!  They Allow withholding of evidence stating "The Trial Court did not abuse its discreation."  California Residents can decide this by viewing Caltrans action now on YOUTUBE and the photo documents that Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman allowed Union Pacific Railroad to withhold at trial that went with Exhibit # 579!

    Again, Judge Martin J. Tangeman stated in a request for rehearing for a new trial about this evidence withheld from discovery and at the time of trial pertaining to Brebes and Davis statements September 12, 2008.---"No further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them."
     "But I think it's imcumbent to demonstrate to the court exactly which factual assertation and which witness would actually produce evidence which would result in a basis for a new trial." County Discovery Abuse Brebes--Sutton per the Baughman Property--Highway 1 PDF File... 

    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 Appelate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert State on P. 4 of their July 28, 2010 published decision  "The court found that the Railroad may have been negligent by failing to enlarge the culvert or requiring that its tenant do so. But the court also found that the Railroad is not a public entity subject to an action for inverse condemnation."  This now changes Inverse Condemnation Responsibility making the lower landowner responsible for drainage from other landowners property that they do not own!

    The Second Appellate Court Justice--Steven Z. Perren---Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthar Gilbert---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 evidence shows Causation and no Date of Stabilization;per photos below!   County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...  
        
    The one Photo that Union Pacific RailRoad Included in Exhibit # 579 shows a Train Wreck and no Date of Stabilization in this drainage system as stated on this photo exhibit #579 " Pipeline in rail road culvert obstructin flow (Culvert Abuse) 13th Street & Highway 1 Mr. Bookout"  The photos and video below show this OCSD pipline obstructing and damming this drainage system as seen in Exhibt #579, 1768 and 1756, which backs up this statement showing no Date Of Stabilization with this OCSD drainage changes since the County of San Luis Obispo permitted building construction of RR property by POVE in 1977, 1984 and 1985!  The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert do not mention this later RR/POVE construction nor any of the other documents that the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from discovery as seen in this PDF file! 
    County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...  
      NPDES - California Fish And Game Video --

    Being an elected OCSD Director--Whistleblower in California Per the flooding of our State Highway-as seen in this March 1, 2007 E-Mail to Scott Radovich and the February 6, 2007 Clayton U. Hall letter To: Ms. Mauri McGuire, Carl Warren & Company CC-Rita L. Neal ESQ--Debra A Hessli-Risk Manager   County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal in regards to the Evidence that they Withheld From Discovery involving their County Insurance.  Plus their Documents presented to Judge Tangeman showing that Flooding Could Be Abated for $43,295.00---pdf    County December 18, 2006 Statement-("Potentially Dangerious Situation") involves public safety to our Pacific Ocean!
     Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD. California State Highway Patrol Put in Danger with flooding--Toxic Waste   

    The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert do not believe as seen in the video above, that the County, and Caltans storm water from State Highway 1 --13th and Paso Robles Streets inside the Oceano Nursery property is inverse condemnation or the use of a "Public Enity Physically entered Bookout's land or maintained possession and control over any portion of it."  They Believe--"The Trial Court correctly concluded the three-year statute applies."  The Second Appellate Court States this even after seeing photos and videos and hearing Caltrans testomony of Caltrans shoveling and grading Caltrans storm water debris into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage channel!


    March 1, 2007 E-Mail regarding this Inverse Condemnation 
    "It is unfortunate that i'm the one that has to be the whistleblower on the County/State/OSD-Cover-up.  This has had a Defamation on my reputation, tremendous financial losses and caused a stigma on my Business that will last forever.  You initially took this case on a inverse condemnation assumption and I still feel, that's the case.  P.O.V.E. and Union Pacific is purely irresponsible and negligent."  County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal in regards to the Evidence that they Withheld From Discovery involving their County Insurance.  Plus their Documents presented to Judge Tangeman that Flooding Could Be Abated---pdf   

    March 1, 2007 E-Mail County in 2007 Withholding of Evidence! "The County Of San Luis Obispo has withheld key information regarding flooding and prior actions of other agencies this has cost the County Tax payers thousands of dollars as drainage studies have been done without this information being provided."

      NPDES - California Fish And Game Video --

    The Second Appellate Court has ruled June 28, 2010 that this 2001-2002 Oceano Community Service District drainage change is not inverse condemnation or Causation of our State Highway Flooding!  The Appellate Court has seen the videos of this OCSD pipe inside a storm water drainage channel discharging well water and debris daily into a storm water drainage system used by the County, Caltrans, OCSD and Union Pacific Rail Road!  The Appellate Court States: 
    "Plaintiff brought this action against a number of public entities and a railroad claiming the defendants caused his property to flood when it rained. The complaint alleged inverse condemnation and tort causes of action. The inverse condemnation cause of action was tried to the court. After plaintiff's case, the trial court granted nonsuit based on the statute of limitations, failure to prove causation, and a determination that the railroad is not a public entity. Thereafter, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the tort causes of action. The court granted the motion based on the trial court's previous finding of lack of causation and the statute of limitations. We affirm."    
     Second Appellate Court-Inverse CondemnationSecond Appellate Court-Inverse Condemnation Train Wreck 

    Jun 28 2010
    B214906
    [
    PDF] [DOC]
    Bookout v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation CA2/6 filed 6/28/10 Detailed case information
    The Second Appellate Court allows withholding of evidence as talked about by Judge Martin J. Tangeman September 12, 2008 and believe's that it is OK for Caltrans to Grade and Shovel Storm Water debris into this California storm water drainage system after Caltrans raised State Highway 1 a foot!  The Second Appellate Court beleives that the flooding of our State Highway cannot be abated!  The Second Appellate Court believes that this flooding is caused by Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange in 1977 construction and that their is no government Liability for Caltrans, County and OCSD drainage changes since 1977!  The Second Appellate Court does not take into account that this POVE construction was over seen and permitted by the County Of San Luis Obispo.  The Second Appellate Court ignores the fact that the County of San Luis Obispo required the outlet of this drainage system raised in 1985 County Building permits!

    The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren, Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert  State on P. 6 and 7 ignoring documents from Brebes and Davis prior to State Highway 1 flooding--(Fountain Ave-Airpark Dr)!   "Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county 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 Second Appellate Court call this a (Single) document instead of what
    Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated September 12, 2008 in regards to some of these (Redacted) whiteness statements, questionnaires and evidence withheld from discovery below!   "No further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them." "But I think it's imcumbent to demonstrate to the court exactly which factual assertation and which witness would actually produce evidence which would result in a basis for a new trial." County Discovery Abuse Brebes--Sutton per the Baughman Property--Highway 1 PDF File... 

    The California Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert have Ruled the actions Above and below are not inverse condemnation and are now Permanent and legal in California, per their Appellate Court Decision June 28, 2010!  Each Justice is fully aware, that this flooding can be abated for only $43,295.00 Exhibit # 1790.  They are aware of the documents above and below withheld from Discovery Exhibit # 579.  They are aware of the OCSD Exhibit # 1756-Prescriptive Easement daily use of this drainage system for 2500 hundred gallons per minute of well water discharge as seen in this 1983 letter to the County of San Luis Obispo Rail-Road taking this drainage system.  They are aware of the Video's of this pipe discharging debris into this drainage system since 2001 per exhibit # 1768! The County 1985 Approved and permitted--RR/POVE pond--mentioned on P. 2 and P. 6-Video P. 8 of their Appellate Court decision!  They are aware of documents withheld by the County Of San Luis Obispo P. 6 and P. 7!  The Appellate Court is aware that this drainage course was not changed by POVE per Caltrans Drainage Documents December 17, 1973 Exhibit # 1772 (Prejudicial Error)   (Accrual Date) (Causation) 

    County of San Luis Obispo and Caltrans Liability to the Pacific Ocean
     Plane Crashes San Luis Obispo County Airport Oceano-Flooding
    Plane Crashes San Luis Obispo County Airport Oceano-Flooding Second Appellate Court-Inverse Condemnation Second Appellate Court-Inverse Condemnation 
    The County of San Luis Obispo Exhibit # 579 Documents withheld from discovery show how this drainage once traveld to the Oceano Airport in 2002 as stated in these County Questionnaires!  These documents will ultimatly close the Oceano Airport when Caltrans and the County San Luis Obispo end using State Highway 1 for Storm Water Retention!
    NPDES - California Fish And Game
     YOUTUBE County Of San Luis E-Mail Deal and Withholding of Evidence County Of San Luis E-Mail Deal and Withholding of Evidence

    California State Government (Caltrans, County, OCSD) should not be allowed to use our storm water drainage channels for their Debris and Well Water!  These videos above were presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman and the Second Appellate Court!  Please read the following two PDF files regarding San Luis Obispo County and OCSD actions during discovery!

    County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal in regards to the Evidence that they Withheld From Discovery involving their County Insurance.  Plus their Documents presented to Judge Tangeman that Flooding Could Be Abated---pdf   

    OCSD Attorney Conflict Robert Weeks--Fiancee/Wife Was Oceano Nursery Bookkeeper that the Oceano Community Service District Hired knowing this Fact!---OCSD Directors Full Knowledge of Their Action!.  pdf..

    The Second Appellate Court does not find an (Abuse of Discretion) in their June 28, 2010 decision P. 6 and 7 or, that it is a Prejudicial Error for the County of San Luis Obispo-or Union Pacific Railroad to withhold 150 Oceano/County whiteness-plus photo/Questionnaires/ documents from discovery until after trial July 30, 2008!  They allow Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman to withhold photo attachments that went with Exhibit # 579 showing Caltrans maintaining the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel--Raising State Highway 1 and blocking drainage on the East Side of State Highway 1!.  The Second Appellate Court does not find this to be a Prejudicial Error in California!
     
    The Second Appellate Court States Page. 7 and 8 of their June 28. 2010 decision
    "Even if the trial court erred in applying the statute of limitations, the trial court found that Bookout failed to carry his burden of proof as to causation in his action against the District, the County and Caltrans. Plaintiff has the burden of proving a substantial causal relationship between the defendant's act or omission and the injury. (California State Automobile Assn. v. City of Palo Alto (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 474, 481.) To carry that burden plaintiff must exclude the probability that other forces alone produced the injury. (Ibid.) "  These YOUTUBE videos below show (Causation) Each State Senator and State Assembly Member is fully aware of these videos and Caltrans, County, OCSD use of this drainage system!Train Wreck  State Highway Patrol put in danger by Caltrans! Railroad Train Wreck
    Video talked about by the Appellate Court----Oceano Train Wreck as seen in photo exhibits withheld from discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo in exhibit # 579!  Caltrans Caught shoveling and grading debris into storm water drainage channel as seen by the California Second Appellate Court and San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman!
  • State Highway Patrol put in danger by Caltrans! Railroad Train Wreck
    California Supreme Court--Inverse Condemnation  Caltrans Steve Price, deputy district director for area operations and maintenance talks about the fix of the flooding of State Highway 1 would showing that this flooding can be abated!...

    California State Senators--State Assemblymembers knowledge of Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo-Inverse Condemnation, affecting Public Health and Safety of our State Highway along with Photo/Statements and Documents withheld by County Of San Luis Obispo And Union Pacific Railroad at trial as allowed by Judge Tangeman, as Judge Tangeman Stated "All  Right"    --Prejudicial Error--

    The Appellate Court is aware of their June 23, 2010 decision, which exercised dominion and control over the private drain as seen in Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6 filed 6/23/10
    PDF]

    "For liability to be imposed on a public entity for a dangerous condition of public property, the entity must be in a position to protect against or warn of the hazard." (Mamola v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 788.)   County of San Luis Obispo--Trying to Make A Deal in regards to the Evidence that they Withheld From Discovery involving their County Insurance.  Plus their Documents presented to Judge Tangeman that Flooding Could Be Abated---pdf   

    Caltrans, County, Oceano Community Service District were each aware from their documents that State Highway 1 Drainage could be abated for only $43,295.00 As seen in the PDF file above per Appellate Court Exhibit # 1790

    The Second Appellate Court ignored (Marin v. City of San Rafael) and their Statement in their June 23, 2010 decision and the Railroads and Our exhibits # 1756, 1874, 1875  "The taking of private property for the purpose of constructing storm drainage systems has been recognized to be for a public use. (Marin v. City of San Rafael (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591, 595; Ullery v. County of Contra Costa (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 562, 568; DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 336.) "An action in inverse condemnation will lie when damage to private property is proximately caused by use of a storm drainage system for its intended purpose." (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 170.) When accepted and approved by a municipality, drainage systems become a public improvement and a part of the system of public works. (Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345, 358.) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency. When the work thus planned, specified and authorized results in an injury to adjacent property the liability is upon the public agency under its obligation to compensate for the damages resulting from the exercise of its governmental power." (Id. at pp. 362-363; see DiMartino, supra, at pp. 338-339.)"

    OCSD Exhibit # 1756 Causation-Exhibits # 1278, 1337, 1338 P. 8 OCSD Respondents. Breif
     
     

     

  • The Second Appellate Court States in their decision P. 2-regarding what they think is the couse of State Highway 1 -13th Paso Robles Streets and Oceano Nursery flooding! "The Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange (Exchange) first leased, then purchased, from the Railroad the property west of the raised rail bed. The iron pipe discharges onto the Exchange's parcel. Around 1977, the Exchange installed a subsurface junction box at the pipe's outfall. From the junction box, the water is diverted 90 degrees through a second 24-inch pipe to a retaining pond 200 feet away. The junction box is inadequate, causing the water to back up and flood Bookout's property."   California Supreme Court and California Residents---How is this Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 Discharge into a government storm water drainage system legal and not a cause?

  • The Second Appellate Court ignored Causation-No Date of Stabilization Exhibits 1756, 1757, 1758, 1768, 1769, 1772, 1773, 1790, 1830, 1874, 1875 County March 27, 1985 permit letter requireing POVE to raise this Drainage system.  On P. 9 of their June 28, 2010 Decision State: "(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 596.) In other words, the city was liable because it directed the installation of, used, and owned the pipe. It even obtained an injunction to prevent plaintiffs from interfering with its operation. None of those factors are present here."  The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County Approved and their involvement in the OCSD pipe constructed in the Rail Roads Drainage channel!   P. 385 Court Transcripts-- 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."   This Statement shows the County Liable per (Marin v. City of San Rafael)

    The Second Appellate Court ignored California Case Law of Dedications as with the Oceano Community Service District Prescriptive Easement Exhibit # 1768 giving a 5 Year Statute of Limitation since Caltrans and OCSD drainage changes in December of 2002.  Caltrans Fred Brebes testified that Caltrans had maintained this drainage system for 30 years prior to 2002!
      
      The Appellate Court States June 23, 2010 in Barrett v. County of Ventura--Filed 6/23/10 Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6 States:  "Dedication of private property for public use requires an offer of dedication by the owner and an acceptance of the offer by the public entity." (Ackley v. City Etc. of San Francisco (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 108, 112.) The "approval or 'acceptance need not be by formal action but may be implied from official acts of dominion or control over the property . . . .' [Citation.] . . . 'Use of the land [for a public purpose] over a reasonable period of time constitutes an acceptance . . . , without any formal action in relation thereto by governmental authority . . . .'" (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) "On the other hand, where 'there is no acceptance of a street or the drainage system within it, there is no public improvement, public work or public use and therefore there can be no public liability for inverse condemnation.'" (Ullery v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 568-569.)   The County of San Luis Obispo has accepted the POVE pond as seen in (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) The County has accepted the OCSD use of this drainage system per exhibit # 1756 and testimony by OCSD! 

    The Second Appellate Court is aware of OCSD, County drainage change actions in Exhibit # 1756 that have taken this drainage channel in Oceano per their aquired Prescriptive Easement since the OCSD April 21, 1983 letter to POVE, County Of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road.  Exhibit # 1768 shows Causation and no date of Stabilization!  Exhibit 1875 Shows the County changing the POVE pond as seen in (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)

     train Wreck in Oceano Caused by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD. California State Highway Patrol Toxic Waste

  • County  of San Luis Obispo Intentional Misconduct of evidence being withheld from discovery and then (Redacted)  Affecting Public Health and Safety/flooding from State HWY 1 to our Pacific Ocean.   Involving the County Of San Luis Obispo--Board of Supervisors--General Services--Airport Property, Fountain Ave and the Larry Baughman Property!  Molly Thurmond on September 12, 2008 informed Judge Tangeman after his August 5, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision of 150 County Oceano Community drainage study Questionnaires, that she and the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from discovery and his August 5, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision!     (Prejudicial Error)  State-Caltrans,County, RWQCB, Drainage Permits presented to the Appellate Court that the Appellate Court ignored!  County--State Drainage to Pacific Ocean that may close the Oceano Airport Port! PDF File San Luis Obispo Tribune 1953 County Drainage!. 
    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!

    California State Senators and State Assembly MembersCalifornia State Senators and State Assemblymember YOUTUBE knowledge of Caltrans   Caltrans Supervision YOUTUBE Video January 2007 RWQCB NPDES Permited 

    Superior Court Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her February 2, 2009 Judgment Decision "Notice of Judgment" States: "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"

    It is unfortunate That San Luis Obispo County withheld Evidence from Discovery attached!  This E-Mail below deals with Caltrans Raising our State Highway and the problems this caused!   The photos in this video show the problems caused by Caltrans raising State Highway 1 and the blockage on the East Side.
  • County Of San Luis E-Mail Deal and Withholding of Evidence Sanctions ... Inverse Condemnation Sanctions California Supreme Court

    From: Scott Radovich User [mailto:scott@radovich.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:31 PM
    To: Bill Bookout
    Subject: Re: Emailing: 2006-10-06_0085

     

    Bill,
    How does this help you? Likewise, I was thinking about the 2002 photo with the curb and gutter and you cleaning up, doesn’t that look like you are cleaning up after a flood? This would contradict your testimony.
    Scott


    On 1/17/07 9:19 PM, "Bill Bookout" <pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net> wrote:

    Scott this is a picture of my neighborhood before my nursery started flooding i'm not sure the date, but it could be 2001
    The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
    2006-10-06_0085

    Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.


    Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel.PDF.. 
    California State Highway Patrol Helping Public with Flooding May 21, 2006California State Highway Patrol--County Of San Luis Obispo Exhibit #579California State Highway Patrol--County Of San Luis Obispo Exhibit #579
    Caltrans caught before and after Judge Tangeman's August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision Grading and Shoveling "Evidence"--Contaminated Storm Water and Debris into the Oceano Communities Drainage system to the County/RWQCB permited Railroad/P.O.V.E. pond, then to our Pacific Ocean!

                          Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado has helped and stated May 12, 2009 
         "I hope that you continue to seek legal counsel and that this very difficult situation will be resolved soon."  
     
       
     
    OceanoOceano Nursery as seen on YOUTUBE and presented to Judge Tangeman!  o NPDES - California Fish And Game
    The Second Appellate Court Ignored in their June 28, 2010 Decision, what had been California Case Law up to June 28, 2010,  With Caltrans, County and OCSD actions this drainage system has no "Date of Stabilization"!   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.

    Caltrans actions of shoveling and grading storm debris into this drainage channel, while the Oceano Community Service District is permitted to discharge Well # 8 water into this drainage system should have been ruled on per the Second Appellate Courts Decision June 28, 2020 per-- Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. Diversion of surface waters into a natural watercourse creates liability only if it causes an unreasonable risk of harm under Locklin factors and is a substantial cause of damage. Flood control system that “fails in heavy rain and causes damage to property that has historically been subject to flooding” governed by rule of reasonableness. City could be liable even if its storm drainpipe discharged into a private pipe and the damage occurred “downstream.” “”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 Justices--Steven Z. Perren--Kenneth R. Yegan---Arthur Gilbert on Page 2 and 6 of their June 28, 2010 decision allow Government to block storm water drainage channels in California per the Davis daily logs Exhibit # 1768!   They believe that these photos and video below of the OCSD use of this channel are not a cause of our State Highway 1 flooding!  They Blame POVE 100% ignoring Exhibit # 1875 of the County of San Luis Building permits per (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) Requiring POVE to raise the County's Storm Water Drainage Outlet!
    NPDES - California Fish And GameAs seen on YOUTUBE changing the date of stabilizationNPDES - California Fish And Game
    The Appellate Court on Page 12 of their Appellate Decision ignores this "Continuous Nuisance" per "Mangini"

      NPDES - California Fish And Game
    The Second Appellate Court is mistaken on P. 8 of their June 28, 2010 decision as testimony presented to the Second Appellate Court from Phil Davis of the Oceano Community Service District and exhibit 1768 are facts that have been seen and mentioned by the Appellate Court!  This evidence is ovewhelming as seen below!  These drainage changes are made after the Appellate Courts P. 8 100% Blame of the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange!   OCSD stated to Judge Tangeman   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 Second Appellate Court is mistaken (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)as stated (FACTS-Discussion P. 8 "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.") ("Causation") ("Overwhelming Evidence") Per Phil Davis Daily logs Exhibit # 1768 mentioned by the Appellate Court in Page 2 and 3 of their June 28, 2010 Decision! The Appellate Court erred in testimony of Fred Brebs and Evidence P. 3, 6, 7--Sutton, Brebes and Davis--Testomony as seen in the Court Transcripts! 

    The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert; ignore Exhibit # 1756, 1731, 1732, 1760, 1763, 1769, 1772, 1773, and 1783 presented by Union Pacific per Causation drainage changes made by Caltrans, County and OCSD showing no (Date of Stabilization) And (Causation) from OCSD taking a working drainage channel in exhibit # 1756 April 21, 1983 for their use (Prescriptive Easement) of this pipe below installed in 2001 per Caltrans exhibit # 1768 .   P. 8 "In other words, the City (OCSD) was liable because it directed the installation of, used , and owned the pipe."

    Union Pacific Rail Road Exhibit # 1756 --P. 8 OCSD P. 7 "Obvious Cause"--(Causation) OCSD letter written to County RR and POVE presented to the Appellate Court (Prescriptive Easement) States: "This Channel has been protected by use of a culvert that would conduct surface waters under Southern Pacific tracks to what may be a bunker under the loading docks of the Pismo-Oceano Vegetable Exchange (POVE) . The water, then, might flow to a small retention basin maintained by POVE."

    "Because this is an established drainage channel. The District feels that its full design capacity should be available for
    use. Reserch, however has not clearly revealed the agency responsible for the maintenance of the channel. Consequently , we have no idea the condition of the channel and wheather, in its present state of maintenance, it can adequately carry the quantity of water that will be discharged." 

    This type of Causation, prescriptive easement over rides the Appellate Court P. 2 P. 6 determination decision that POVE construction in 1977 was the cause of this flooding!   OCSD admitted in exhibit # 1756   "We have no idea the condition of the channel and wheather, in its present state of maintenance, it can adequately carry the quantity of water that will be discharged."   They contacted the County of San luis Obispo per their testimony. (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 1768---September 11, 1985 letter and Phil Davis daily logs showed The Appellate Court Justices, the Prescriptive Easement, Causation that each have claimed does not exist!  The County actions in these drainage changes and permits exhibit 1874-1875 are the main Cause per (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)
    NPDES - California Fish And Game The Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert
    NPDES - California Fish And Game
    Mention this Causation-Prescriptive Easement video of the Oceano Community Service District ignoring expert testimony on P. 3 of Keith Crowe "(3) the district well added silt and debris;"  In exhibit # 1768 OCSD and Caltrans David Fry-recieved a complaint of debris daming/blockage--(NOT FLOODING) and abated this problem per their testimony and the Phil Davis Daily logs!  OCSD daily logs States on Friday, December 20, 2002.  "I had to meet with Bill Bookout and a couple of guys from cal trans about the 6 inch line from well 8 that ends at the culvert by the tracks.  I had Dan saw off the 6 inch pipe and end it 5 feet in front of the culvert so that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrence to the culvert." 

    Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert P. 6 fail to acknowledge this Prescriptive Easement, Causation testimony other then to State:  "But none of these alledged changes of conditions compelled the trial court to conclude that the flowing was not relatively consistant and static for several years prior to Bookout's purchase of his property.""    County of San Luis Obispo documents left out of exhibit # 579 provided  December 2, 2008 after trial shows the Appellate Court Justices decision to be wrong!  Prejudicial Error!

    The Appellate Court viewed and Mentioned 500 photos plus videos showing OCSD possession/prescriptive easement of this drainage channel exhibit #1756!  Change of (Statute of Limitations/Causation P. 7)  This taking of this drainage channel by OCSD is after P. 2 (Facts) P. 6 (Discussion) of POVE County Permitted drainage changes in 1977-- The Appellate Court on P. 6 regarding "Date of Stabilization" believes that the last improvements where in the late 1970's!  Ignoring the photos/videos/exhibits above presented to and mentioned by the Appellate Court!  The Appellate Court ignores Fred Brebes Testomony that Caltrans had maintained this drainage channel for 30 years prior to 2002!   OCSD has been in charge since as seen above and in their weed abatement P. 6 of the Apellate Court Transcripts!  Oceano Community Service District States:  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.”
     
    The Second Appellate Court on P. 9 of their June 28, 2010 Decision State: "(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 596.) In other words, the city was liable because it directed the installation of, used, and owned the pipe. It even obtained an injunction to prevent plaintiffs from interfering with its operation. None of those factors are present here."  The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County involvement in the OCSD Prescriptive Easement pipe constructed in the Rail Roads Drainage channel!   P. 385 Court Transcripts-- 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." (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)

    This Same Appellate Court Stated  five days eariler in Barrett v. County of Ventura--Filed 6/23/10 Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6  "The taking of private property for the purpose of constructing storm drainage systems has been recognized to be for a public use. (Marin v. City of San Rafael  (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 591, 595; Ullery v. County of Contra Costa (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 562, 568; DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 336.) "An action in inverse condemnation will lie when damage to private property is proximately caused by use of a storm drainage system for its intended purpose." (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 170.) When accepted and approved by a municipality, drainage systems become a public improvement and a part of the system of public works. (Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345, 358.) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency. When the work thus planned, specified and authorized results in an injury to adjacent property the liability is upon the public agency under its obligation to compensate for the damages  6 resulting from the exercise of its governmental power." (Id. at pp. 362-363; see DiMartino, supra, at pp. 338-339.)"

     

     The Second Appellate Court  States on P. 6 P. 7 of their Appellate Court decision compleatly ignore as Exhibit # 579 documents withheld from discovery an trial!  County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...  They State:  "The determination of when the statute of limitations begins to run is a question of fact. (Lee, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.) Here the trial court determined that the date of stabilization theory does not apply. The court found that the last improvements to the drainage system were constructed by the Exchange in the late 1970's, and that the flooding problem was relatively consistent and static for several years prior to the time Bookout purchased his property in 2000.

  • Bookout challenges the trial court's findings by listing what it characterizes as changed conditions since the Exchange constructed the junction box in the 1970's. The alleged changed conditions include: maintenance activities, modifications to Well No. 8, weed abatement, removal of a retaining wall, alteration of Highway 1, shoveling and grading of debris, accumulation of debris, and an increase in impervious surfaces. But none of these alleged change of conditions compelled the trial court to conclude that the flowing was not relatively consistent and static for several years prior to Bookout's purchase of his property.

    Bookout argues the trial court erred in receiving documentary evidence that was not produced during discovery. The document is a county 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 Appellate Court is mistaken as seen in these documents withheld by Judge Tangeman--Union Pacific Railroad and the County of San Luis Obispo!County Discovery Abuse per the Baughman Property from State Highway 1 PDF File...

    Jun 28 2010
    B214906
    [
    PDF] [DOC]
    Bookout v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation CA2/6 filed 6/28/10 Detailed case information
  • Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert ignore as Stated in the Appellant's Reply Brief ("Accrual Date")  or (Causation)!!!  P. 7 and 8.  The Appellate Court States P. 8 and 9: 

    "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 Exchange has settled with Bookout. Evidence that the remaining defendants contributed to the conditions that caused the flooding rests largely in Crowe's expert testimony. As helpful as expert opinion can be, such testimony carries a built-in bias: experts are most often very well paid for their opinions. The trial court had good reason to be skeptical of Crowe's testimony. We apply the usual rule on appeal that the trier of fact is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, even if uncontradicted. (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.
    (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1028.) The evidence presented here did not compel the trial court to find in favor of Bookout." 

    The Appellate Court chose to ignore the fact that this flooding could be abated from Caltrans documents for only $43,295.00 and that the County of San Luis Obispo required the outlet for this water raised per County Permits Exhibits 1874-1875.  The California Supreme Court will need to decide if this is now legal in California (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)and if Has any merit for California Case law?
     
          
    Caltrans East Side of State Highway 1 flooding photo 2002 of complaint in exhibit # 579-----Caltrans actions in raising State Highway 1 a foot without addressing drainage off of State Highway 1!  The Appellate Court States:  "Here there is an obvious cause of flooding.  The Exchange modified the drainage--"  Excuse me why would Caltrans Raise State Highway 1 and not account for drainage!!!  This Nusisance Can be Abated!

    The County of San Luis Obipo in their Appellate Court brief mention "McKinley" on P. 19 but does not mention Mr. McKinley's Statement below showing Caltrans changing the drainage stabilization (Causation) of HWY 1. 13th, and Paso Robles Streets--per exhibit 579 (Causation) a change in (Date of Stabilization) and that Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange is not the Cause of this flooding!

    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.” 
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                Appellant's Reply Brief                                    

    "Conditions in the Watershed are not Static which Entitles Appellant to a Delayed

     

    Accrual Date

    There have been several actions and modifications by Respondents to the drainage channel and watershed which are a cause of the flooding of Appellant’s property. Judge Tangeman held that date of stabilization approach does not apply since the last improvements to the drainage system were completed in the late 1970's and the flooding was consistent and static for several years prior to the date the Plaintiff purchased his property (Appendix #13).  Below is a summary of the actions by Respondents which have changed the drainage conditions relative to Appellant’s property since the construction of the junction box in the late 1970's:

    i) Maintenance activities in the drainage channel. (Respondent’s Appendix “RA” Exhibit 1768; Reporters Transcript “RT” Vol. 2 Pg 382-400; RT Vol 6 Pg 1506-1507; Exhibit 1446-1447).

    ii) Modification of Well #8 discharge pipe by OCSD. (RA Exhibit 1768)

    iii) Operation of Well # 8 (RT Vol 2 Pg. 383)

    iv) Weed abatement in the drainage channel by OCSD. (RA Exhibit 1768; RT Vol 6 Pg 1545)

    v) Removal of retaining wall by Caltrans (RT Vol 3 Pg 642-643).

    vi) Alteration of Highway One in the year 2002/2003 by Caltrans. (RT Vol 3 Pg 645-646)

    vii) Alteration of Highway One in the year 2005/2006 by Caltrans (RT Vol 3 Pg 645)

    viii) Constant shoveling and grading of debris into drainage channel by Caltrans. (RT Vol 4 Pgs 916-917, 920; Exhibits 1466-1467, 1513-1519)

    ix) Accumulation of sedimentary debris in drainage channel which reduces storage capacity. (RT Vol. 4 Pg 920; RT Vol 6 Pg 1534; RT Vol. 6 Pgs. 1546-1551)

    x) Increase in impervious surfaces in the watershed (RT Vol.6 Pgs 1572). These activities have slowly destabilized any static condition in the watershed which may have existed after the junction box modification in the late 1970's. Although there has been conflicting evidence of when Appellant’s property first began flooding, these changes in the watershed afford Appellant a delayed accrual date until the conditions remain unchanged, which to date has not happened. If conditions have been static since the late 1970's as held by Judge Tangeman, why did it take 30 years for Plaintiff’s property to begin flooding?"

    The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County involvement in the OCSD prescriptive easement pipe constructed in the Rail Roads Drainage channel!   P. 385 Court Transcripts-- 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."

    Videos as presented to Judge Tangeman of OCSD prescriptive easement of dredging debris into the Oceano Community's storm water drainage system since December 2002!   Now seen on YOUTUBE-------
    Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 January 13, 2007

     

     

  • The Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert-on Page 10 bring up Arreola v. County of Monterey, however ignores this case as presented to the Appellate Court  "(An entity that has power to control a project is liable even if it does not actively participate in it. An entity with the power to control a project need not actively participate in it to suffer liability. Proof that an entity signed a contract assuming responsibility for the project, shared a common governance with an active participant, or provided an exclusive revenue source for the project, can establish control.) Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) Cal.App.4th-[2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4319]." 

    The Second Appellate Court ignored this written Appellant's Reply Brief Statement! 
    "The Flooding of Appellant’s Property is a Continuous Nuisance One of the factors to determine if a nuisance is permanent or continuous is the ability to remedy the situation. Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (1985) 29 Cal.3d 862, 869. As Appellant’s expert testified, the construction of a detention basin near the inlet of the culvert would prevent Highway One and Appellant’s property from flooding. (RT Vol. 6 Pgs.1583-1584). Also, Respondent County of San Luis Obispo and the State of California Department of Transportation designed a fix to the situation in 1987 for $43,295. (RA Exhibit 1790). The situation in this case is not a permanent nuisance, and Judge Estrada-Mullaney’s ruling preventing Appellant to proceed on his nuisance and trespass causes of action in the second phase were in error. Under this rationale, if the Respondents put a lid on the culvert today to prevent all drainage from entering it, Appellant would still not have a cause of action for nuisance, even though this new act creates more flooding and more damage."  They then discredit (Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 1143.) For this nuisance that can be abated!
    NPDES - California Fish And GameAs seen on YOUTUBE changing the date of stabilizationNPDES - California Fish And Game
    The Appellate Court on Page 10 of their decision bring up (Reasonableness)   In Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) Shows Caltrans, County and OCSD liability as all were aware of this risk posed by its public improvement and deliberately chose a course of action- or inaction-in the face of a known risk.  "Knowing that failure to properly maintain the Project channel posed a significant risk of flooding." "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." JAMES ARREOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. --

                     California Supreme Court--YOUTUBE video-Inverse Condemnation 
    All Videos of Caltrans actions, can now be viewed on You Tube under Inverse Condemnation, Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and Oceano Community Service District 
    You Tube Video of Caltrans January 4, 2007 Shoveling Debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage System

    The Second Appellate Court on Page 12 of their June 28, 2010 decision claim that this flooding is permanent---Ignoring Exhibit # 1790 and Exhibit # 1768, 1875!  Even though the evidence presented to them shows, that can be abated for $42,295.00    They bring up (Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985)  Baker shows the accrual of a nuisance cause of action depends on whether the nuisance is permanent or continuing: “In general, a permanent nuisance is considered to be a permanent injury to property for which damages are assessed once and for all, while a continuing nuisance is considered to be a series of successive injuries for which the plaintiff must bring successive actions. (Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1985) 39 Cal.3d 862, 868-869 (Baker).)

    The Second Appellate Court ignores the fact presented to Judge Tangeman and the Appellate Court of Exhibit # 1757 of a signed Caltrans, County and OCSD contract showing that this flooding could have been abated, prior to the flooding we are seeing since 2004!  Judge Tangeman was aware of the March 14, 1985 OCSD meeting inwhich Gina Davis OCSD Deputy Secretary to the Board. ATTEST Minute Order "At its regular meeting on march 13, 1985, the board of Directors of the Oceano Community Service District directed President Allen to sign amended cooperative agreement #05a239, between the State and Oceano Community Service District, covering the contribution by the District to the State for the correction of an unsatisfactory drainage condition at Mile Post 12.4 on State Highway 1."

    Caltrans with Judge Tangeman's August 5, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision, now has a legal right to (NOT) maintain drainage off of our State Highways in California!!  The Oceano Community Service District can now legally dredge debris into this Railroad property storm water County of San Luis Obispo drainage system after the County requied the outlet pond raised per exhibit #1875--County permits--(Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)! 

    Caltrans States to the Regional Water Quality Control Board---January 12, 2009:
    "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
    D-5 NPDES Coordinator
    Office 805-549-3375
    Cell 805-305-7726"

     
    The Oceano Community Service District use of this storm water drainage channel affecting public health and safety as seen in exhibit 579 and testified about by Caltrans!!!
     
    Notice the Dam that the OCSD Well # 8 PVC pipe creates in this Storm Water Drainage Channel in 2002 photo before flooding and OCSD cut their pipe in 2002 leaving this discharge pipe in this channel to discharge debris into the Railroads/County drainage system????

    Caltans David Fry testified to Judge Tangeman regarding Caltrans 5 Year Prescriptive Easement--construction in the Railroad drainage channel and changes made by Caltrans of the OCSD Well # 8 Pipe in December 2002 with Caltrans installing concrete bags in front of the Oceano Community Service District Well # 8 water discharge Pipe Page 931 per exhibit # 579:   Answer. “Mr. Bookout called me and asked me if I could come down and look at the pipe that – A pipe that was inserted into the entrance of the culvert. So we went down there. I met with Mr. Bookout, and I also met with Phil Davis from the Oceano Community Service District. and Mr. Bookout’s concern was that the pipe was blocking the entrance and, basically, the volume of the pipe. The --The Community Service District pipe was taking up some of the space the water could flow through the culvert.” Question. Okay. Answer. “So his request was that the Oceano Community Services District cut the four-inch water pipe, shorten it so that it didn’t actually go into the entrance to the culvert.” Question. Was that done?  Answer. “That was done And when we were discussing that, I suggested that they put concrete sacks at the bottom, you know, in the bottom underneath the culvert pipe coming out a few feet, so they didn’t create a wetlands there. Because , basically, dumping extra water into the culvert -–I don’t know how often OCSD flushes their water tank, but by adding extra water, if that was wet all year-round, you’d have Tules growing there and it would create a wet lands.” So by placing something solid underneath it, then you would avoid that issue, because once that issue arises, then there’s a whole new – A whole new can of worms.” Question. Additional problems? Answer. “Additional problems, Yes.” Question Regarding what level – What types of maintenance activities could be done in wetlands; Is that correct? Answer. “Correct.”
     
    Notice Caltrans Drainage change (Prescriptive Easement) above (Concrete Bag and OCSD Pipe) as seen by Judge Tangeman and local news media per exhibit #579! with the Appellate Court decision on June 28, 2010 this action by local government in California is now Legal!

    The Second Appellate Court on P. 6 of their June 28, 2010 decision ignore that this (Prescriptive Easemant) drainage situation, that has not Stabilized per the exhibits presented to them!  The Appellate Court States:
    "In Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California (1969) 70 Cal.2d 282 (disapproved on other ground in Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 694), the state constructed a freeway over land owned by Pierpont. Pie brought an action for condemnation and damages. The state demurred on the ground that Pierpont failed to file a claim under the government claims within two years of the accrual of the cause of action. The court held the claim was timely. Pierpont reasonably awaited the completion of the project to determine more accurately the exact extent to which its remaining property would be damaged. (Id. at p. 293.) Courts have subsequently cited Pierpont for the proposition that where there is continuous and repeated damage, incident to a public improvement, the limitations period does not begin to run until the situation has stabilized. (See Lee, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.)"
  •     
    "The determination of when the statute of limitations begins to run is a question of fact. (Lee, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.) Here the trial court determined that the date of stabilization theory does not apply. The court found that the last improvements to the drainage system were constructed by the Exchange in the late 1970's, and that the flooding problem was relatively consistent and static for several years prior to the time Bookout purchased his property in 2000."
       
    "Bookout challenges the trial court's findings by listing what it characterizes as changed conditions since the Exchange constructed the junction box in the 1970's. The alleged changed conditions include: maintenance activities, modifications to Well No. 8, weed abatement, removal of a retaining wall, alteration of Highway 1, shoveling and grading of debris, accumulation of debris, and an increase in impervious surfaces. But none of these alleged change of conditions compelled the trial court to conclude that the flowing was not relatively consistent and static for several years prior to Bookout's purchase of his property"    The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Peren--Kenneth R. Yegan--Arthur Gilbert ignored the County 1985 Building Permits Exhibits # 1874, 1875 as presented to the Appellate Court Requiring POVE to raise the OCSD, Caltrans, RR, County Drainage HWY Outlet  State, Caltrans, County, RWQCB Drainage to the Pacific Ocean--Involving Toxic Waste!PDF...
     
    Cal Trans November 26, 2008 after Judge Tangemans Decision calling this being a good neighbor!  YOUTUBE Video...
     
    RE: Statute of Limitations and Prejudicial Error in regards to evidence withheld from discovery/trial by the County of San Luis Obispo and 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 Photos, Caltrans-McKinley Testomony P. 645 and (RA exhibit #1768) changing the Statute of Limitations!  Date of Stabilization per Caltrans photos below per complaint!  Judge Tangeman mishearing Caltrans Testomony, that from 2002 and prior Caltrans had a 30 year history of maintaining this drainage channel with Caltrans equipment rather then shoveling and grading debris into this drainage channel since!  OCSD Prescriptive Easement (Taking) giving a 5 year statute of limitations

    In the SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Decision--
    Barrett v. County of Ventura CA2/6 filed 6/23/10 shows Formal acceptance by Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and the Oceano Community Service District as with their; Dominion and Control Exercised by the public entity over property necessary for inverse liability may be implied from the performance by the entity of maintenance and repair work or other official acts of control over the property.(
    Ackley v. City Etc. of San Francisco, supra, 11 Cal.App.3d at p. 113; Yox v. City of Whittier, supra,182 Cal.App.3d at p. 353; Ullery v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 568-569.)
     
    Caltrans-Exhibit # 579 Photos taken by Caltrans in regards to complaint in Exhibit # 579 showing Flooding!
    Notice photos below withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo of Caltrans maintaining drainage channel in summer 2002!  Photo of Caltrans flooding east side of State Highway 1 per Exhibit # 1789!

    Judge Tangeman would not allow Exhibit # 1789 in evidence which deals with Caltrans prior statements and the photos in Exhibit # 579 withheld from discovery, as it states:  “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)” 
     
    Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973) and Thomas A Cregger, ESQ. (SBN 124402) both knew at the time of trial that both had knowledge of these Causation/Date of Stabilization-Prescriptive Easement-Photos and Documents, Whitness's that they withheld from discovery and Judge Martin J. Tangeman!  ( DURING TRIAL.) Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP on July 30, 2008 provided Questionnaires and redacted the whitness's names!.  The color photos above where not provided until December 2, 2008 after trial as previously requested.  Dean Benedix, County response No. 1--October 16, 2008 States: "If you would like us to provide you with copies of the redacted responses, we will produce such copies once you have paid the estimated copying cost of $50.00." Dean Benedix, County response No. 2--October 16, 2008  "Response: We will produce copies of the requested attachments and photographs per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $15.00."  
    Lou Wheeler photos-Documents showing no flooding prior to 2004 --as viewed by Dean Benedix, Randy Ghezzi, Raleigh Greene, Max Keller, Cliff Howe, Michael Eckman per Dean Benedix statement: "I believe the attached photos are from Lois Wheeler of Oceano 481-5687 D Benedix 6/10/02"
    Response No.3 from Dean Benedix After trial regarding documents wittheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo! 
    "We will produce copies of written communications and photos (in Color) Sent by oceano community members to Questa Engineering or the County of San Luis Obispo in regards to flooding in Oceano between 2000-2004 per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $10.00."

    The Second Appellate Court in their June 28, 2010 decision allows this type of withholding of evidence!
    County Of San Luis Obispo--R. George Rosenberg, Deputy Director of ...County Of San Luis Obispo--R. George Rosenberg, Deputy Director of Exhibit 579 YOUTUBE...
    San Luis Obispo County/Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 579 photo documents withheld from discovery by County of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road shows Caltrans raising State Highway 1 a foot and the flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 this created, as stated in the document provided with County 2002 Drainage Study Questionnaire!  These color photos where provided  December 2, 2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Stabilization to this drainage system!

    San Luis Obispo County Exhibit # 579 documents withheld from discovery by the County deals with prior County Inverse Condemnation by the County of San Luis Obispo in the Al Baughman property west of State Highway 1!  In exhibit 1789 Caltrans States: 
    "One of the members of the Oceano Commuinty Service District is an owner of property downstream from project (P. Hom)."

    Glenn Priddy of the County of San Luis Obispo testified:   "Are you aware of proposals for resolving the drainage problem at -- That we've referred to previously? Are you aware of proposals to resolve that problem dating back into the eighties?" Answer. Yes. Question. And have you raised issues with the respect to proposed solutions due to downstream impacts?  Answer. I have – There have been issues raised about potential downstream impacts since the eighties, and I –In the most recent discussions, I’ve pointed that out as something that needs to be looked at.” Ms Thurmond States: “Again, this is outside the water shed, not affecting Bill BookoutEx-OCSD Director Larry Baughman states in the documents that the County of San Luis Obispo withheld from discovery in exhibit # 579.  "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"
    The Oceano Airport and the Larry Baughman Property Flooding prior to 2004 as talked about in Exhibit # 579 documents withheld from Discovery/Trial by the County of San Luis Obispo!

    The San Luis Obispo New Attorney's Porter Scott--Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 99189 and Thomas L. Riodan, SBN 104827--- in their Respondents Brief mention exhibit 579 defending the prejudicial error that the County of San Luis Obispo made in withholding evidence from discovery and their attempt to get out of "Harsh Discovery Sanctions"  As there is plenty of evidence showing their Intentional Concealment of Evidence before and after trial!  The County States: "In any event, whatever error the trial court made regarding this solitary document was harmless in light of other admissible evidence demonstrating  the Plaintiff became aware of the causes of flooding damage to his property no later then 2002."  (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.) Needs to hold the County accounable for withholding evidence from discovery!
    NPDES - California Fish And GameWhy would a California Superior Court Judge not allow Exhibit # 1789 into evidence and then admit in against protest partial evidence, Exhibit # 579?  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, 2008 Inverse Condemnation Decision States on P. 2117-2018 without acknowledging the photographs, regarding 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." 

    Caltrans States in Exhibit # 1789 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)”

    Caltrans and the County of San Luis Obispo knew before raising State Highway 1-13th and Paso Robles Streets as seen in Exhibit # 1785 May 14, 1987 that all prior drainage problems could have been abated!  Caltrans States: “We decided that there were two basic solutions to the problem. They are:” “# 2 Construct a detention or retention basin above the Railroad on their property and leave the existing culvert as is.”

    “Tim Smith and Glenn Priddy we discussed the flooding problems that would be created by passing the water under the railroad through a new culvert. That would require the County buy an easement south and west of the railroad to maintain a channel to protect the residences in the low lands.”

    If a retention or detention pond of sufficient size could be constructed next to the highway on railroad property the existing culvert may work with a few changes such as lowering the outlet of the POVE pond. This Idea would protect the downstream people from flooding. One problem with the retention pond would be the fact that the existing culvert’s flow line is too high to drain the pond. There-fore most of the pond water would never drain through.”

    County Exhibit 579 documents withheld from discovery shows the County of San Luis Obispo talking about the flooding of their Airport Property next to the Baughman property!  "Northeast side of Oceano Airport Runway adjacient to Fountain Ave.  Approx. 30,000 SQ. FT several inches deep, occuring annually."  "This study is a major concern for the Oceano Airport and the need to protect and preserve the Airport."  "Oceano Airport is part of an overall 'Airport system' which is heavily regulated by the Federal Government (FAA). Any Impacts to the Airport will Require Extensive Review."  R. George Rosenberger, Deputy Director of General Services County Of San Luis Obispo
    County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George ...
    County Of San Luis Obispo--Deputy Director of General Services--George  R. Rosenberger..YOUTUBE.

    This E-mail from OCSD General Manager Patick O' Reilly, ties in with the County Of San Luis Obispo Withholding of Evidence regarding Dean Benedix and documents within Exhibit # 579 involving Fred Brebes of Caltrans and Fountain Ave. Flooding that Judge Tangeman stated   "no further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them."    This is a very large Prejudical Error, that now affects every California residents health and Safety on State Highway 1 in Oceano!

    From: Patrick O'Reilly [mailto:patrick@oceanocsd.org]
    Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 8:52 AM
    To: 'Hill, James E'; 'Bill Bookout'; 'Vern Dahl'; 'Pamela Dean'; Bjm8923@cs.com
    Cc: 'Gina Davis'
    Subject: Zone 3 Committee Assignment

     

    I spoke with Dean Benedix at SLO County and he advised me that the County can not work with individuals who have law suits pending against the County.  They also can not provide anything in writing since anything in writing is potentially part of any lawsuit.  I believe this to be standard operating policy for most public agencies.

     

    I would recommend that we appoint a new alternate member to replace Director Bookout on the Zone 3 committee.  If we do not do that, we will only have the primary member who is Director Dean.

     

    Patrick O'Reilly

    General Manager

    Oceano Community Services District

    Office Phone 805-481-6730  Cell Phone  805-458-5139

     
    Caltrans plowing through State Highway 1 while the Baughman property is not flooded as seen in Exhibit #579 withheld by the County San Luis Obispo.   
    The Respondent's Brief's by the County of San Luis Obispo have chosen to lie to the Appellate Court in regards to evidence presented at trial!

    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!!!  The County on P. 4 of their Respondent's Brief States:  "The nuisance alleged by Plaintiff is a permanent one, difficult to abate, not a continuous one for which a new cause of action accrues upon each flood."  "In addition, Plaintiff suggests no evidence that might have established the County's Liability for such torts, which require at least as much direct conduct and causation from the County, as compared to inverse condemnation."  The County States on P. 29 of their Respondent's Brief States--under Statute of Limitations  "A continuing nuisance is one that may be easily or inexpensively abated by the defendant,"  As seen in Caltrans, County and Oceano Community Service District Documents presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman this flooding can be easily abated for only $43,295.00!!!!!

    County Of San Luis Obispo Withholding of Evidence from Discovery Exhibit # 579 endangering Oceano Residents!... 
    County
    of San Luis Obispo and State of California Tort liability Drainage West of State Highway 1.   If they fix their flooding of State Highway 1 as seen in documents that Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973 and The County of San Luis Obispo Dean Benedix withheld from Discovery!   ---------The State Highway 1 fix is only $43,295.00!!!!------

    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 that where not part of Exhibit # 579 presented to Judge Tangeman!

    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 that Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973) and The County of San Luis Obispo Dean Benedix withheld from Discovery!

    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
    Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated September 12, 2008 in regards to these (Redacted) whiteness statements and evidence withheld from discovery above!   "No further information was forthcoming and now the questionnaires are here I guarantee they are voluminous, I haven't even read through all of them." "But I think it's imcumbent to demonstrate to the court exactly which factual assertation and which witness would actually produce evidence which would result in a basis for a new trial."

    The Appellate Court ignored direct testimony by Phil Davis showing the County involvement in the OCSD pipe constructed in the Rail Roads Drainage channel!   P. 385 Court Transcripts-- 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."

    You Tube--Caltrans District 5 against their NPDES Storm Water Permits and Training!
    Why would the State of California/Caltrans raise a State Highway as seen in exhibit #579 withheld from discovery and then grade and shovel contaminated storm water debris into a storm water drainage channel as a Community Service District; Dams and Dredges, Debris in this man made storm water drainage channel?   
    Trial Briefs ignored by Judge Tangeman regarding Arreola V. Monterery 2002... 
    California Fish And Game California State Highway Patrol Helping Public with Flooding May 21, 2006California State Highway Patrol YOUTUBE Helping Public May 21, 2006
    California State Highway Patrol Helping Public with Flooding May 21, 2006
    State Senator Abel Maldonado and Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee's Help and letters of support pdf...   
    In Exhibit 1789 dated September 15, 1987; Caltrans States:  " The County provided the permit to the railroad and/or its tenant for the new building construction that now impedes the drainage flow which is the reason that makes this project necessary."
    NPDES - California Fish And Game YOUTUBE Video-Causation-NO Date Of StabilizationNPDES - California Fish And Game
    Judge Tangeman Stated in regards to the video above presented to him at trial. 
    "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 No. 8, there was an absence of evidence that such discharges occurred contemporaneously with heavy rains and flooding problems."  Please view the video above taken January 13, 2007 talked about by Judge Tangeman!  Judge Tangeman August 5, 2008 Decision not looking at evidence and testimony at trial PDF..  
    California Supreme Court--Inverse CondemnationCalifornia Supreme Court--Steve Price Caltrans District 5-Inverse Condemnation  Caltrans Steve Price, deputy district director for area operations and maintenance talks about the fix of the flooding of State Highway 1 would ...
    Caltrans District 5 Inverse CondemnationCaltrans District 5 YOUTUBE Inverse Condemnation    Caltrans District 5 Inverse Condemnation  December 2006 interview with Caltrans----Notice the Oceano Community Service District Prescriptive Easement for well # 8 pipe submerged pipe under flood water as Caltrans looks on...

    Judge Tangeman States having acknowledged OCSD use of this Drainage system on Railroad property:  "
    I find that there has been no establishment of prescriptive easements by any of the governmental entities over the private property of the railroad."    "I also find that there was insufficient evidence of causation as to Oceano Community Service District, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California as between their acts and conduct and the flooding, especially given the problems associated with the drainage across the private property of the railroad and/or of P.O.V.E., without necessity to distinguish between those two entities."
     
    The Second Appellate Court on P. 10 of their June 28, 2010 Appellate Cour Decision has Ruled:   "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 on P. 13 of their June 28, 2010 Appellate Cour Decision has Ruled:    "All Mangini was trying to say is that a nuisance can still be continuous even after the offensive conduct has ended.  The nuisance or trespass alleged here is permanent. The three-year statute of limitations bars Bookout's causes of action for nuisance and trespass."

    The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondents.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

    GILBERT, P.J.   We concur: YEGAN, J.  PERREN, J."

    The Appellate Court States regarding their decision above per this flooding of our State Highway being Permanent!   “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 Appellate Court is wrong with this decision as seen in Causation  
    Exhibits 1756, 1757, 1758, 1768, 1769, 1772, 1773, 1790, 1830, 1874, 1875  (Marin v. City of San Rafael, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at pp. 595-596.)

    Caltrans Drainage from State Highway 1 per Exhibit # 1772 Dated December 17, 1973 photos and statements shows this 90 degree drainage turn going back to 1953.  POVE (Exchange) did not redirect the flow as ruled by the Appellate Court!

    Below are facts as decided in Yue v. City of Auburn 3 Cal.App.4th 751 The Second Appellate Court mistook these facts and I would like to have them in the record as we go to the California Supreme Court?

    The fact that the Second Appellate Court on June 23, 2010 stated in Barrett v. County of Ventura—Filed 6/3/2010  Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 [28 Cal.Rptr. 357 with the 5 Year statute is very different then what the Appellate Court stated in our decision just five days later on P. 5 of their Appellate decision!  This need to be in the record for the California Supreme Court~!

    Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 [28 Cal.Rptr. 357] involved damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land adjoining plaintiff's property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiff's existing ditch. The court noted the basis of the city's liability was its failure to appreciate the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Frustuck property, functioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the diversion of waters from their normal channels, would result in some damage to private property. (Id. at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid.) "The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency." (Id. at pp. 362-363.) 

    The Second Appellate talks about this in Barrett v. County of Ventura--Filed 6/23/

    “Burrows v. State of California (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 29 [66 Cal.Rptr. 868] was a case in which defendant's road resurfacing and widening project eliminated a drainage ditch, thus changing drainage patterns of surface water and causing flooding of plaintiff's land.”  The Appellate Court ignored Caltrans raising State highway 1 “McKinley testimony and RR and OCSD exhibit # 1756?

    Burrows noted, "in ... surface water cases we do not usually deal with unintended, though foreseeable consequences of acts or omissions, but rather with intended results which may or may not be reasonable, depending on all of the circumstances." (Burrows v. State of California, supra, 260 Cal.App.2d at p. 34.)

    Inns v. San Juan Unified School Dist. (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 174 [34 Cal.Rptr. 903] a school altered its property's natural surface drainage pattern through a wide, vegetation- covered swale to direct water through a 28-inch culvert onto plaintiff's property. Although the plaintiff had always been subject to a "servitude" for the water from the school's land, this court held the increase in volume and velocity of water released into the swale created inverse condemnation liability. (Id. at p. 177, citing LeBrun v. Richards (1930) 210 Cal. 308 [291 P. 825, 72 A.L.R. 336].)

    4] A cause of action for inverse condemnation based on surface water damage must conform to the general inverse condemnation principles set forth in Albers v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250 [42 Cal.Rptr. 89, 398 P.2d 129], and grounded in California's Constitution. fn. 2 (Sheffet, supra, 3 Cal.App.3d at pp. 731-732.) In certain circumstances, an owner of private property may recover in an inverse condemnation action where [3 Cal.App.4th 760] actual physical damage is caused to his property by a public improvement as deliberately planned and built, whether or not the damage is foreseeable. (Albers, supra, 62 Cal.2d at pp. 262, 263-264; contra Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 567 [re Flood Waters]; Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296, 306-307 [90 Cal.Rptr. 345, 475 P.2d 441].) In certain circumstances, a governmental agency may be held strictly liable, with or without fault, if the public improvement constitutes a substantial cause of the damage even if only one of several concurrent causes. (Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 171 [210 Cal.Rptr. 146]; accord, Belair, supra, at pp. 559- 560.)

    8] Plaintiffs allege that the city's unreasonable "failure to recognize" the obvious problem in design, and its corresponding unreasonable "failure to upgrade" the existing drainage system, resulted in damage to their property. Defendant contends these allegations undermine plaintiffs' cause of action for inverse condemnation because defendant is under no duty to upgrade existing systems to prevent damage caused by any and all future storms. But defendant is relying on inapposite flood control cases for authority. (E.g., Tri-Chem, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 306 [132 Cal.Rptr. 142]; Shaeffer v. State of California (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1017 [99 Cal.Rptr. 861] (overruled on other grounds in County of San Diego v. Miller (1975) 13 Cal.3d 684, 693 [119 Cal.Rptr. 491, 532 P.2d 139]).) The cited cases did not involve a failure to plead a cause of action for inverse condemnation under any possible theory. Instead, they concerned the plaintiffs' failure to prove the defendants' flood control projects caused flood waters to inundate plaintiffs' properties. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at pp. 310-312; Shaeffer, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1019-1021.) The defendants were not liable because the evidence disclosed the flood control projects decreased the amount of flooding that would otherwise have occurred naturally on the the plaintiffs' lands. (Tri- Chem, supra, at p. 310; Shaeffer, supra, at p. 1019.)

    Unlike the cited cases, plaintiffs are not alleging defendant had a duty to build or upgrade a flood control system to prevent naturally occurring flood waters from flowing onto plaintiffs' land. (Tri-Chem, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at pp. 308-312; Shaeffer, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1019-1021.) Instead, they are contending defendant approved the development of a subdivision, which increased the flow of surface waters, then built a culvert to divert these surface waters even though defendant knew, or should have known, the new culvert would empty into an existing drainage system with a significantly smaller capacity, inevitably causing plaintiffs' land to be flooded. In other words, plaintiffs are alleging defendant had a duty to prevent harm to plaintiffs' land caused by conditions defendant approved or created. Since the cited cases do not hold that a defendant has no duty to upgrade an existing drainage system to accommodate an increase in and diversion of surface waters caused by the defendant, defendant's reliance on these cases is unavailing. [3 Cal.App.4th 764] 

    All of this information has been found with the Appellate Courts June 23, 2010 decision in Barrett v. County of Ventura--Filed 6/23/10  This is enough to bring this back to this Appellate Court for reconsideration!

    ?FN 2. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made to ... the owner. ..." ( Cal. Const., art. I, former ? 14.)

    ?FN 3. Reasonableness in the context of surface water inverse condemnation cases has to do with balancing the utility of the public project against the gravity of the harm caused to the plaintiff. "[T]he gathering of surface waters into a system of impervious storm drains which follow natural drainage routes may result in greatly increased volume, velocity and concentration of water, and thus may constitute an unreasonable method of disposing for such water when weighed against the seriousness of the resulting harm to lower landowners whose property is damaged as a result." (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, 20 Hastings L.J. at pp. 451-452, fn. omitted.) 

     

     

     

  • The evidence attached was presented to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court in their August 5, 2008 decision allowing Caltrans to shovel and grade debris into this drainage system?  This Trial Courts decision ignored recent California Case Law--Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) Cal.App.4th
       
    Local News Media has viewed this improper use of this drainage system/State Highway 1 along with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, as seen below!  An exhibit #1773 presented to Second Appellate District Court by Union Pacific Railroad dated January 10, 1985 shows a prior problem on the east side of State Highway 1 before this flooding today!  This flooding could have been abated by Caltrans for only $36,000.00 after receiving $5,000.00 from OCSD/Oceano Residents.   Caltrans presented photo exhibit #1772 showing drainage going to its current location in December 17, 1973 Caltrans 1953 Aerial Photo Exhibit #1871/1772 shows Caltrans Knowledge of Hwy Drainage changes to Baughman Property And Pacific Ocean!PDF involving the County of San luis Obispo...
     
    The Oceano Community Service District and Union Pacific Railroad have presented an exhibit # 1756 to the Second Appellate District Court dated April 21,1983 pages 11, 12, 13 showing OCSD taking use of this storm Water drainage Channel Caltrans, OCSD and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention PDF. 
    While the County of San Luis Obispo on Page 17 of their Appellate Brief show OCSD and Caltrans cutting the OCSD Well # 8 Six-inch pipe above once again changing any Stabilization this system might of had!  Thus, changing what the County calls an accrual date!

    Caltrans David Fry testified regarding Exhibit 579 photos of the OCSD Well # 8 Pipe and the Caltrans concrete bags above:  Page 931 regarding exhibit # 579 Caltrans talks about their construction and drainage change in the drainage channel in December 2002 as seen in exhibit #579. Answer. “Mr. Bookout called me and asked me if I could come down and look at the pipe that – A pipe that was inserted into the entrance of the culvert. So we went down there. I met with Mr. Bookout, and I also met with Phil Davis from the Oceano Community Service District. and Mr. Bookout’s concern was that the pipe was blocking the entrance and, basically, the volume of the pipe. The --The Community Service District pipe was taking up some of the space the water could flow through the culvert.” Question. Okay. Answer. “So his request was that the Oceano Community Services District cut the four-inch water pipe, shorten it so that it didn’t actually go into the entrance to the culvert.” Question. Was that done?  Answer. “That was done And when we were discussing that, I suggested that they put concrete sacks at the bottom, you know, in the bottom underneath the culvert pipe coming out a few feet, so they didn’t create a wetlands there. Because , basically, dumping extra water into the culvert -–I don’t know how often OCSD flushes their water tank, but by adding extra water, if that was wet all year-round, you’d have Tules growing there and it would create a wet lands.” So by placing something solid underneath it, then you would avoid that issue, because once that issue arises, then there’s a whole new – A whole new can of worms.” Question. Additional problems? Answer. “Additional problems, Yes.” Question Regarding what level – What types of maintenance activities could be done in wetlands; Is that correct? Answer. “Correct.”

    Superior Court Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her February 2, 2009 Judgment Decision "Notice of Judgment" States: "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"Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel.PDF..

    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”  Why is Caltrans allowed to Grade Contaminated Debris Into this Storm Water Drainage Channel?
    Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing inverse condemnation Caltrans endangering public Safety!.PDF..

     
    The Caltrans Supervisor mentioned by the Court explained Caltrans grading of debris into Storm Water Drainage channels as seen in Caltrans Testimony at trial on page 916-917 of the San Luis Obispo Court Reporters Transcripts. 
    Question.
    Mr. Fry, Exhibit # 1475 on the screen there is the same as Exhibit 11 in your deposition transcript. Can you describe for me the materials that you see here on Highway 1?
    Answer.I see Dirt, Water, Eucalyptus Leaves and Seed Pods from the Eucalyptus.”
    Question. Now in your practice as a Maintenance Supervisor and as a lead worker, has it consistently been your practice to somehow, I guess, blade this material to the side of the road?
    Answer.
    YES. When – When it gets in this condition, we come down with a plow truck and we plow it back off the road. Sometimes we plow it to the gutter and come back later and pick it up. Sometimes we plow it behind the curb and either roll it in with the truck or leave it behind, just leave it behind the curb where it came from.”     
        
    Caltrans November 26, 2008 after the August 5, 2008 decision regarding Inverse Condemnation continuing to shovel contaminated storm water debris into this Oceano Communities drainage channel!??

    In this sworn testimony statements by Caltrans.  Caltrans has admitted their improper use of this storm water drainage system for their accumulated debris storage coming off of State Highway 1!
       Why would this Superior Court State:
    "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 flooding is continuous and can be abated with proper Maintenance by Caltrans!

      
    Caltrans Stated at Trial Regarding their maintenance of State Highway 1 Page 917-918       
    Question.
    “Based on your personal observations, has a substantial amount of material entered onto the Highway as depicted in 1475 following the removal of the concrete wall?” THE COURT: I’ll allow that Question.
    Answer.
    Yes, I believe that the dirt came from the bank.”
    Question. “Due you have any problem at all with sediment buildup in the mouth of the channel?”
    Page. 919
    Answer.
    Sediment? Not so much sediment as Eucalyptus bark. There is some sediment, Yes. 

    Question. “Fifteen Seventeen, that’s a picture of you, isn’t it, Mr. Fry.”
    Answer. I believe it is. I can’t see my face.”
    Question. “Do you recognize that as the entrance to the drainage channel?”
    Answer. “
    YES”

     
    Caltrans stated at trial in their testimony regarding 2003 raising State Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles Streets due to ponding problem on East Side of their State Highway--Exhibit 579 documents withheld from discovery show ponding problem in 2002 as talked about in 2002 questionnaire. 

    The County of San Luis Obipo in their Appellate Court brief mention "McKinley" on P. 19 but does not mention Mr. McKinley's statement below showing Caltrans changing the drainage stabilization of HWY 1. 13th, and Paso Robles Streets--per exhibit 579!

    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.”

    Why would a California Superior Court Judge feel that Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 and Two County Streets since 2003 is not a problem after Caltrans had raised their State Highway in December 2000?  Caltrans has acknowledged this major drainage change due to East Side ponding photos above?  December 2000 Below!

     
    Caltrans actions in raising State Highway 1 have been been talked about by Caltrans since September 15, 1987 as seen in Exhibit # 1789 presented to Judge Tangeman and identified as documents in Caltrans files! Caltrans States:

    “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
    Caltrans Drainage changes raising State Highway 1 on purpose; affecting public health and safety is now public knowledge!  It is now time for local News Media to start asking some questions of Caltrans, County and OCSD!!
        
    Attached at the bottom are a list of exhibits presented to the trial Court, in Yellow that are documents exhibit #'s 1731, 1732, 1756, 1760, 1763, 1769, 1772, 1773, 1783 that Caltrans, OCSD, Union Pacific Railroad believes shows that this flooding can not be abated and has been flooding forever.  I ask the public to decide for themselves and then talk to our News Media as this affects all California Residents! 



     
    Why is Caltrans Shoveling & Grading Storm Debris into the Oceano Communities Drainage System?  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”   Is this type of Maintenance normal for Caltrans?
     
    Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing Caltrans endangering public Safety!...

    Caltrans stated at trial regarding their drainage maintenance in Oceano July 14, 2008:
    • 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 were throwing it up the bank.”

      Question: “So you are keeping it in the four feet that you consider to be caltrans right-of-way?”

      Answer: “Yes.”

      Question: “And how often have you and your staff engaged in this particular activity?”

      Answer: “How often does it rain down there?”

      Question: “Is it fairly often?”

      Answer: “Yes.”

      Question: “Based on rain fall?”

      Answer: “Yes, just about every time it rains.” 

    • Caltrans_intentionaly allowing State Highway 1 to flood instead of west side of Oceano Documents.pdf

    •  
      Oceano Nursery Contaminated Storm Water outside damage along with Oceano Market flooding problems.
       
      Two Feet plus of contaminated storm water in 2004           2007 Flooding!!!!

    •  

       

    • Why would Judge Tangeman feel that this OCSD Well # 8 Pipe used daily by the Oceano Community Service, pumping 2500 Gallons of water a minute into this drainage system is not a cause of the debris that is dredged into this Storm Water drainage inlet pipe?  Notice the nice green grass on one side of the pipe and all the debris on the other side?
     This is what an engineer had told Judge Tangeman about Well # 8!!!  Additional_Calculations.pdf see liability Supplemental_Expert Calculations.pdf see Recent Developments in Inverse Condemnation Law

    The San Luis Obispo Superior Court stated regarding this photo evidence of the Oceano Community Service District use of this Storm Water Drainage Channel: ---"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."
     
    The Oceano Community Service District use of this storm water drainage channel affecting public health and safety as seen in exhibit 579!!!
     
    Notice the Dam that the OCSD Well # 8 PVC pipe creates in this Storm Water Drainage Channel 2002 photo before OCSD cut their pipe in 2002 leaving this discharge pipe in this channel to discharge debris into the Railroads drainage system????

    The San Luis Obispo new Attorney's Porter Scott in their Respondents Brief mention exhibit 579 talking about this OCSD pipe in this drainage channel; in this Brief Porter Scott state:  "In any event, whatever error the trial court made regarding this solitary document was harmless in light of other admissible evidence demonstrating  the Plaintiff became aware of the causes of flooding damage to his property no later then 2002."  This government use of a drainage system can be abated and is not harmless mixed with Caltrans raising State Highway 1 and the County of San Luis Obispo requirment of the drainage retention pond to be raised in 1985!
     
    Oceano Community Service District Testimony At Trial:
    Question. March 23rd , 2005,
    it's a discussion of Joe and Max removing Eucalyptus Bark from in front of the culvert? Answer. Yes. Question. That would be the date of the photo that's on the screen, correct March 23rd, 08--
    Answer
    . OH FIVE. PAGE 101-
    Question
    -Was that debris removed from the site or, as you said earlier, disposed at the top of the bank?
    Answer. I believe they Just threw it out with a pitch fork, on the bank. 
    Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing Caltrans endangering public Safety!...

    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 Contaminated 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 this PDF file-- Caltrans and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention. The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has stated, regarding the flooding of State Highway 1 and Oceano Nursery: "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance"  Local News Media is now aware of governments use of this drainage system!
     
    Why would the San Luis Obispo Superior Court Allow this use of a Storm Water drainage Channel against California Case Law????
    JAMES ARREOLA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. -- San Luis Obispo County Drainage Changes dating back to the early 1950's.

    If the San Luis Obispo Superior Courts decision stands, then all California Inverse Condemnation case law will change
        
    The San Luis Obispo Regional water Quality control board have viewed the Blog www.oceanonurseryflooding.blogspot.com and have made the following comments to Caltrans in regards to their maintenance actions above and below!!

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Matt Thompson [mailto:Mthompson@waterboards.ca.gov]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:07 PM
    To: john_papathakis@dot.ca.gov; pete_riegelhuth@dot.ca.gov
    Cc: Marissa Nishikawa; Harvey Packard; Roger Briggs; Sorrel Marks; Tamara Presser
    Subject: Caltrans Maintenance Activity on Highway 1, Oceano

     

    John, Pete,

     

    As we spoke about earlier today John, here is the blog that Oceano businessman Bill Bookout has shared with Water Board staff and other agencies:

     

    http://www.oceanonurseryflooding.blogspot.com

     

    This blog includes photos and videos of Caltrans maintenance workers plowing and shoveling flood-related debris from Highway 1 into a roadside ditch.  Mr. Bookout says the Caltrans maintenance supervisor is David Fry (sp?).  Mr. Bookout asserts that this activity is causing a nearby culvert beneath the railroad tracks to become clogged with debris, which exacerbates flooding of his property.

     

    Caltrans' NPDES stormwater permit prohibits the discharge of wastes or wastewater from road sweeping vehicles or from other maintenance or construction activities to any surface waters or to any storm drain leading to surface water bodies.  This maintenance activity appears to violate this prohibition.  Please direct your maintenance staff to immediately discontinue this activity.  Any flood-related debris should be scooped up and properly disposed of in an appropriate location.  If we receive any further complaints regarding this activity, we may find Caltrans in violation of its NPDES requirements and pursue formal enforcement action. 

     

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

     

    --Matt Thompson

     

    Regional Water Quality Control Board

    Central Coast Region

    895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101

    San Luis Obispo, California 93401

     

    V (805) 549-3159

    F (805) 788-3572
     Caltrans-D-5 Pete_Riegelhuth January 12, 2009 Statement to.RWQCB.PDF.   
      
    The San Luis Obispo Trial Court has ignored California Case Law---Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) __

    6.5.3 Property Historically Subject to Flooding
    Public projects not related to flood control trigger strict liability when they cause water damage to property, even if it is historically subject to flooding.  A State Highway backed up flood water onto plaintiffs' property. The appellate court concluded that the two sources of the rule of reasonableness--traditional private water law, and Professor Van Alstyne's balancing analysis--both weighed towards strict liability. First, traditional water law does not privilege downstream obstruction of flood water, as in the instant case. Second, Van Alstyne's public policy analysis only permits a reasonableness approach where a project's primary purpose is to protect plaintiffs' property. Here, the State's purpose in building the highway was to benefit the traveling public.  Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) __Cal.App.4th__ [2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4319].

    Trial Briefs ignored by Judge Tangeman regarding Arreola V. Monterery 2002...


    The San Luis Obispo Superior Court erred on September 12, 2008 when Judge Tangeman changes his statements in his August 5, 2008 decision as he states in his final Decision on 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.” 

    It is unfortunate that Judge Tangeman choose to ignore the issues in the Supplemental briefs
     "Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) Cal.App.4th"  
    In Judge Tangeman's written decision August 5, 2008, he stated!   “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” 

    Again please review these County documents County of San Luis Obispo documents showing flooding could have been abated for $43,295.00 see Pages 16-19-Sept 25, 87 .pdf  Showing that this flooding could be abated by the defendants!

     
    Can a San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge allow the County of San Luis Obispo to withhold evidence affecting public Health Safety with full knowledge of the documents that where withheld from discovery and trial? The County of San Luis Obispo withholding of evidence from discovery until December 2, 2008 should not be allowed!   

    Judge Tangeman Stated in regards to this information below that was withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis ObispoExhibit #579 Not Presented July 15, 2008 Photos of Caltrans/Brebs Raising State Highway 1 in the summer of 2002 where not provided by the County or the Railroad before or during trial as stated by Union Pacific Railroad and allowed by the Trial Court! 

    “And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.”
    The Court States: “All Right”

    These Photo Exhibits # 579 that the San Luis Obispo Superior Court has allowed the County of San Luis Obispo to be withheld from Discovery affects all San Luis Obispo County Residents Health and Safety along with our California Constitution and what was California Inverse condemnation Law!!

     
    Documents Withheld from Discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo showing Caltrans raising State Highway 1 in Summer of 2002 as the document States at the top.  The second photo document withheld by the County of San Luis Obispo shows Caltrans removing debris from this drainage channel in 2002 rather then grading and shoveling storm water debris into this drainage channel!
     
    These photos where taken by Caltrans showing the effects of Caltrans raising State Highway 1 causing a dangerious condition to pedestrian traffic, Flooding of the East side of State Highway 1 along with Splashing of inventoy at Oceano Nursery prior to full flooding in 2004 of the Oceano Market, Oceano Nursery and the old Oceano Fire Station!!!
     
    Oceano Drainage changes from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean as seen in this Caltrans August of 1953  photo Exhibit #1772 dated December 17, 1973Caltrans Photo of Drainage channel when House's where on top of what is today the storm water drainage channel!  Exhibit # 1773 dated January 10, 1985 is a proposed drainage correction for this drainage channel after OCSD took the use of this drainage channel for other purposes then storm water as seen in exhibit # 1756 dated April 21, 1983.Historically this water would not be stored on State Highway 1 as seen in the drainage path in the 1953 Caltrans Photo above!  It is noticeed in this 1953 Caltrans photo that a Sand Dune is where the County of San Luis Obispo Airports drainage is today as also seen in documents withheld from Discovery by the County Of San Luis Obispo.  This Drainage effects every Oceano Resident from State Highway 1 to our Pacific Ocean!

    In this Caltrans August 11, 1967 photo it is seen that the Railroad house's have been removed and that the drainage channel is differn't then today.  Railroad drainage is seen west of the POVE Company

    In Exhibit
    # 1772 dated December 17, 1973 before State Highway 1 drainage changes by Caltrans it was known by Caltrans that the Railroad had a retention pond on their property that Caltrans was also using for storm water retention.  Caltrans admits that drainage west of this location being a sag in the road "Would not back up to the railroad culvert to affect highway drainage."

    Oceano Residents should not be held financially responsible for the County and States Drainage changes, nor should our State highway 1 today be used for Contaminated Storm Water Retention! 

    March 31, 1949 Photo of Oceano before the County of San Luis Obispo began drainage changes from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean.
    The evidence that the County of San Luis Obispo had withheld from discovery (Exhibits # 579) that was not part of Exhibit # 1769 makes the County liable for drainage changes from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean.  The County of San Luis Obispo had a responsibility to provide all documents that would have gone with this 2004 Drainage and Flood Control Study.

    Notice that the Oceano Lagoon had not been enlarged along with the County Airport had not been built by the County of San Luis Obispo?  The drainage in 1949 did not travel to lagoon as it does today!
                          
                  Below are reasons why California Case Law has been put in danger with this Trial Courts Decision ignoring California Case Law---Arreola V. Monterey 2002!
    This is a history of documents discoverd involving Cal Trans, The County of San Luis Obispo and the Oceano Community Service District quotes below.
    Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf  In these documents it is learned of the State of California concerns of drainage problems west of State Highway 1 as also seen in the documents that the San Luis Obispo County had withheld from discovery until after trial.

    The Oceano Community Service District Letter to Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 stated in Quotes Exhibt # 1756 Dated April 21, 1983 written to the San Luis Obispo County; Showing the Oceano Community Service District taking the Oceano Communities Drainage channel for other use's the Storm Water Drainage.  This action of eminent domain has caused this drainage system to not be able to stabilize!!!

    "This Channel has been protected by use of a culvert that would conduct surface waters under Southern Pacific tracks to what may be a bunker under the loading docks of the Pismo-Oceano Vegetable Exchange (POVE) . The water, then, might flow to a small retention basin maintained by POVE."
     
    "Because this is an established drainage channel. The District feels that its full design capacity should be available for use. Reserch, however has not clearly revealed the agency responsible for the maintenance of the channel. Consequently , we have no idea the condition of the channel and wheather, in its present state of maintenance, it can adequately carry the quantity of water that will be discharged."

     

     

     
    Exhibit # 1768 shows the Oceano Community Service District taking this drainage channel for other uses then Storm Water drainage followed by their hap hazard maintenance.  This document take all liability away from POVE with the Oceano Community Service Distict changing the Stabilization of this drainage system from their September 11, 1985 OCSD meeting minutes up to their January 7, 2008 daily log!
    March 14, 1985 Gina Davis OCSD Deputy Secretary to the Board. ATTEST Minute Order "At its regular meeting on march 13, 1985, the board of Directors of the Oceano Community Service District directed President Allen to sign amended cooperative agreement #05a239, between the State and Oceano Community Service District, covering the contribution by the District to the State for the correction of an unsatisfactory drainage condition at Mile Post 12.4 on State Highway 1."

    May 24, 1985 Cal Trans Oceano Drainage Correction From R.D. Mcnew Subject: Retention Basin on RailRoad Property Dennis Donovan, POVE, John Goni, Water Quality Control Board, Pete Hom, Jim Carpenter, Gary Simms and Bob McNew, Caltrans present. "We began the meeting by examining the present drainage conditions and discussing the conditions of the drainage prior to the expansion of the vegetable processing facility. We then discussed alternatives to lower the outlet of the drainage facility." Both Dennis and John agreed that the waste water from the vegetable washer should be seperate from the Highway drainage."

    Exhibit # 1773 dated January 10, 1985 Shows Caltrans responsibility under California Case law Arreola V. Monterery 2002 initiated after OCSD drainage changes as seen in exhibit # 1756 dated April 21, 1983!  In this Exhibit it is noted under background of water ponding "on the shoulder and the east half of the northbound at this location.  The ponding forces northbound traffic to cross into the south-bound lane to avoid the pond."  It is mentioned the minor study of this problem from 1974 that the flooding since 2004 has not been present prior!  In Exhibit # 1773 under "Deficiencies and Justification shows drainage changes by OCSD in constructing a new fire station and OCSD "agreed to make a $5,000.00 contribution to improve the drainage in front of the fire station."  This contribution is seen in a Signed minute order attached with this document from OCSD dated September 29, 1984!

    Exhibit # 1773 Dated January 10, 1985 shows that all prior drainage problems at this location could have been abated by the State of California-Caltrans in 1985 for $41,000.00 including the $5,000.00 contribution by the Oceano Community Service District .   This Exhibit is before Caltrans began raising State Highway 1 in 1985 with street lighting with OCSD!
      
    Exhibit # 1731 January 16, 1986 letter written to POVE by Caltrans
    comes after the County of San Luis Obispo requied POVE to raise the Outlet of their pond and OCSD taking use of this storm water drainage channel for their Well # 8 use that is not storm water.  This letter should have been written to the Oceano Community Service District along with the County Of San Luis Obispo!  This involve California Case Law Arreola V. Monterey.

    Exhibit # 1732 February 18, 1986 was written by the Santa Fe Pacific Reality Corporation to POVE regarding Exhibit # 1731

    Exhibit # 1783 July 23, 1986 written by Caltrans to Southern Pacific Railroad are after OCSD took use of the drainage channel for their Well # 8 along with the new OCSD fire station drainage.  The silt mentiond in this letter would be coming from OCSD new use of this drainage system!  In this exhibit is mentioned the Railroad basin having a higher outlet.  This Higher outlet came from the County's building permits requirments in exhibit #1875 March 27, 1985 County of San Luis Obispo letter!

    May 14, 1987 Cal Trans File G. L. Simms Subject Oceano Drainage Problem " We discussed the flooding problems that would be created by passing the water under the railroad through a new culvert. That would require the County buy an easement south and west of the railroad to maintain a channel to protect the residences in the low lands."

    May 20, 1987 Cal Trans Memorandum Robert N. Wright "The second concern is that we fully inform the downstream owner or owners of the need for a drainage ditch clean up, clean out, or improvement."

    August 2, 1987 Cal Trans meeting Pete hom, Gary Simms, John Wallace, Robert N. Wright "In our last meeting it was determined that the land owners downstream would object to a new 36-inch straight drainage pipe under the railroad and county road which was proposed by the state because of the probable flooding of the Baughman property as well as others in the low lands."

    Caltrans Downstream Concerns of flooding the Baughman property as well as others!  Exhibits found in exhibit 579 withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo.  In the evidence withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo Attorneys and not provided until after trial and December 2, 2008 are Questionnaire Statements/photos by residents and property owners of Oceano showing County Drainage Problems on Fountain Avenue, Corner of Highway 1, Front, Delta and the whole west side of State Highway 1. Residents at 1539 Fountain State: " March 2001 Flooding on entire Street."

    Property owner Larry Baughman 1895 Casitas owner of 1519 Fountain Ave and Ex- OCSD Director States in this document provided by the County of San Luis Obispo after trial!:   "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"

    This is Mr Baughmans statenent in the County Summery as the County choose to not include their liability that was addressed in the questionaire that Mr. Baughman had provided!  "Channel between Railroad Street And Fountain Avenue overgrown."  As seen with other exhibits withheld from discovery the County of San Luis Obispo did not want to address their downstream drainage changes affecting California Residents who use State Highway 1
    September 15, 1987 Cal Trans Memorandum Robert n. Wright a meeting was held in Frank Lentz office September 15, 1987 At that meeting were Pete Nom, Gary Summs, O.J. Solander, Richard Hill, John Wallace, Tim Smith, Glenn Priddy, Jim Granflatten and Bob Right. "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."

    The State Could Go ahead under an emergency condition and build the project as planned. Then the cost of the project would be distributed proportionally and both the Railroad and the County would be enjoined in that action (O.J. Solander)"
    Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf

    September 25, 1987 Cal Trans letter to County of San Luis Obispo Glenn Priddy Cost estimate for County's part of drainage fix $9,310.00 by Gary Simms of Cal Trans 9/24/87

    November 30, 1988 Cal Trans Memorandum Fred Brebes shows Cal Trans maintenance of the drainage channel "9/1/83 Clean Ditch In oceano" "3/30/84 Clean Sand along curb from ditch" "1/1/86 Clean Ditch" 12/14/87 Clean trees from Ditch area"

    Exhibit # 1332 P. 84 of a Caltrans photo dated 1-88 G.M.R. showing the drainage channel in 1988 before OCSD made fruther drainage changes that would block and dredge debris into the Railroads storm water drainage system. The Trial Court admitted into evidence Exhibits # 1331 and 1332 p. 86 as stated by the Court. "Thirteen Thirty-One And 1332 Will Be Recieved. Overruled."

    November 28, 1989 Cal Trans Memorandum Frank M. Lentz Deputy District Director Right of way subject Legal Opinion "We have been concerned, however, that our construction work might generate additional tort liability."

    Exhibit # 1760 March 15, 1991 from the County of San Luis Obispo to the Oceano Community Service District shows the Counties liability for drainage before any flooding of the Oceano Nursery property.  This document shows the County of San Luis Obispo's liability to the Pacific Ocean.

    Exhibit 1763 from the Countyof San Luis Obispo shows ally way problems ?

    May 20, 1992 in a Cal Trans Memorandum from Steve Hendrickson District hydraulics Engineer "The railroad was unwilling to financially participate in this project, and as result certain legal questions were raised. Downstream property owners opposed to the project could hold the participating agencies responsible for future flooding."

    When Cal Trans raised Highway 1 in late 2000, early 2003 and 2006 they chose to flood State Highway 1 and surrounding properties rather then correct a minor drainage problem!

    They created ponding problems that had not been present before. They had previously discussed; and stated 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).” Their inappropriate and unsafe actions of raising State Highway 1 in late 2000, early 2003 and 2006 effect more people then the County and OCSD. It is time to correct Cal Trans inappropriate Drainage changes since late 2000!

    The Following are Exhibits that were presented to the Court found in Discovery Showing County, Caltrans, OCSD Railroad Liability and knowledge of flooding west of State Highway 1 and their reasons for not fixing small problems On Highway 1 as seen in Caltrans chooseing to grade and shovel debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel as well as OCSD being allowed to daily dredge debris into the Railroads Storm Water inlet that fills up all of theirs retention pond!

    Exhibit # May 1, 1985 “Contacted Rich Hill of the Oceano Community Service District about Highway drainage. I questioned him about the retention pond next to the packing sheds and who had authority over the location and construction of it. He said possibly everybody beginning with POVE S.P.R.R. and County Flood Control was involved. He also informed me that a Board member owned a house and wanted the water routed South on Highway 1to the corner and this Question will Be asked when we present the plans to the board. Bob McNew"

    Exhibit # 1785 May 14, 1987 “We decided that there were two basic solutions to the problem. They are:” “# 2 Construct a detention or retention basin above the Railroad on their property and leave the existing culvert as is.”

    “Tim Smith and Glenn Priddy we discussed the flooding problems that would be created by passing the water under the railroad through a new culvert. That would require the County buy an easement south and west of the railroad to maintain a channel to protect the residences in the low lands.”

    If a retention or detention pond of sufficient size could be constructed next to the highway on railroad property the existing culvert may work with a few changes such as lowering the outlet of the POVE pond. This Idea would protect the downstream people from flooding. One problem with the retention pond would be the fact that the existing culvert’s flow line is too high to drain the pond. There-fore most of the pond water would never drain through.”

    Exhibit # 1786 May 20, 1987 “The Second concern is that we fully inform the downstream owner or owners of the need for a drainage ditch clean out, or improvement. The State could look to the Oceano Community Service District or the County to be the lead agency when it comes to dealing with owners below the project.”

    Exhibit # 1788 August 2, 1987
    “In our last meeting it was determined that the land owners downstream would object to a new 36- inch straight drainage pipe under the railroad and the County road which was proposed by the State because of probable flooding of the Baughman property as well as others in the low lands.”

    Exhibit # 1789 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

    Exhibit # 1795 November 28, 1989 “We have been concerned, however, that our construction work might generate additional tort liability. The work would not cure the flooding problem, and the “changed condition” could possibly shift blame from the actual responsible parties.”

    Exhibit # 1796 May 20, 1992 “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 participating agencies responsible for future flooding. These drainage changes may shift blame from the actual responsible parties.”

     Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel...
    Oceano Nursery Appeals Briefs: Coming soon                                                 
    Caltrans Respondents Briefs:  Coming Soon                                                         County Of San Luis Obispo County: Respondents Briefs coming soon                    
    Oceano Community Service District:  Respondents Briefs coming Soon                 
    Union Pacific Railroads: Respondents Briefs coming soon 
                                                    

     Caltrans September 15, 1987 Department of Transportation Memorandum stating: 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.” County Documents withheld from discovery show Caltrans raising State HWY 1 in 2002! Judge Tangeman admitted this new evidence in after our trial however chose to ignore this evidence in his decision!

     Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 a foot without addressing their prior Drainage concerns in the Oceano Communities Storm water drainage system as seen above in quotes from their own documents!!!!

    Caltrans public safety dangers with their new sidewalk installed after they had raised State Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles Streets.  Notice Cars driving over new sidwalk??????

    One of serveral Accidents after Caltrans Raised State Highway 1!!!!!  Notice no safety cones, that Caltrans later installed.

    The Public can help by contacting their local and
      National News Media and bring this to the residents of California's attention.   

    Local County of San Luis Obispo and State government should not be allowed to endanger San Luis Obispo Residents as seen in Caltrans Documents Exhibit # 1785 dated May 14, 1987!!!  

    A Dention or Retention basin on Railroad property instead of State Highway 1, Oceano Market, Oceano Nursery and the Community of Oceano would abate all of this flooding of State Highway 1 in Oceano!!!

    ABC News
    NBC News
    CBS News
    Five Cities Times Press Recorder
    San Luis Obispo New Times
    The San Luis Obispo Tribune
    The Sacrament Bee,
    Fresno Bee,

    Exhibit # 1785 May 14, 1987
    “We decided that there were two basic solutions to the problem. They are:” “# 2 Construct a detention or retention basin above the Railroad on their property and leave the existing culvert as is.”

    “Tim Smith and Glenn Priddy we discussed the flooding problems that would be created by passing the water under the railroad through a new culvert. That would require the County buy an easement south and west of the railroad to maintain a channel to protect the residences in the low lands.”

    If a retention or detention pond of sufficient size could be constructed next to the highway on railroad property the existing culvert may work with a few changes such as lowering the outlet of the POVE pond. This Idea would protect the downstream people from flooding. One problem with the retention pond would be the fact that the existing culvert’s flow line is too high to drain the pond. There-fore most of the pond water would never drain through.”
    Web Hosting Companies