The County of San Luis Obispo now admits that the flooding of State Highway 1 is not the fault of Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange as the County Of San Luis Obispo states in this same E-Mail dated November 8, 2010---- “However, because of the relatively flat grades it is anticipated that the pipe may need frequent maintenance to keep it clear of the eucalyptus leaves that currently clog the existing ditch and pipe.
e County of San Luis Obispo in their “Answer To Petition For Review” by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 shows the Supreme Court why the review was necessary as the County 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)”
The United States Supreme Court will have to decide California (Cal. Rules of Court, rul 8.500(b)(1).) and (Cal.Rules of Court, rule8.1105.) in order to decide if California Government can actually use storm water drainage systems for other use then storm water!
The second Appellate Court in their California case law decision talk about this use and the videos presented to them showing the department of Transportation use of this drainage system!
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."
How is it legal that the County of San Luis of Obispo can withhold evidence from discovery and then use only part of this evidence withheld from discovery at trial?
Is government not responsible to provide all of the documents that they have withheld from discovery when presenting new evidence?
Why is Caltrans allowed to shovel debris into the storm water drainage channel as seen above in the videos presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman?
The County of San Luis Obispo now admits that the flooding of State Highway 1 is not the fault of Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange as the County Of San Luis Obispo states in this same E-Mail dated November 8, 2010---- “However, because of the relatively flat grades it is anticipated that the pipe may need frequent maintenance to keep it clear of the eucalyptus leaves that currently clog the existing ditch and pipe.
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago
e County of San Luis Obispo in their “Answer To Petition For Review” by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 shows the Supreme Court why the review was necessary as the County 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)”
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago
The United States Supreme Court will have to decide California (Cal. Rules of Court, rul 8.500(b)(1).) and (Cal.Rules of Court, rule8.1105.) in order to decide if California Government can actually use storm water drainage systems for other use then storm water!
The second Appellate Court in their California case law decision talk about this use and the videos presented to them showing the department of Transportation use of this drainage system!
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago
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."
As stated by the Second Appellate Court.
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago
How is it legal that the County of San Luis of Obispo can withhold evidence from discovery and then use only part of this evidence withheld from discovery at trial?
Is government not responsible to provide all of the documents that they have withheld from discovery when presenting new evidence?
Why is Caltrans allowed to shovel debris into the storm water drainage channel as seen above in the videos presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman?
InverseCondemnation1 1 year ago