Caltrans Caught shoveling Contaminated Storm Water and Debris into the Oceano Communities Storm Water drainage channel as reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
-----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
As stated by Judge Tangeman:
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 defendants case. Some of the issues I was ready without the defendants case, those are the issues I address in the 631.8 ruling. So Im going to deny the motion for new trial. I will deny the motion for reconsideration.
The San Luis Superior Court had stated in their August 5, 2008 decision P. 2
This matter came for trial on July 9, 2008. Numerous witnesses testified and hundreds of exhibits were received in evidence. At the conclusion of Plaintiffs case, defendants, and each of them, made oral motions for judgment. After hearing arguments from counsel, the Court requested supplemental briefing on the statute of limitations, as well as Plaintiffs argument that Defendants had acquired certain property rights under the doctrine of prescriptive easements.
Written decision August 5, 2008? NOW, AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN THIS MATTER IN PLAINTIFFS CASE-IN-CHIEF AND, IN ADDITION, THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF, THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, AND THE PRE-TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL BRIEFS FILED BY THE PARTIES, THE COURT NOW RULES AS FOLLOWS. DEFENDANTS MOTIONS ARE GOVERNED BY CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 631.8
Prejudicial Error by the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice! The Trial Court would not comment or cite Arreola v. Monterey in their August 5, 2008 decision that now affects the Public Health and Safety of all San Luis Obispo County residents from State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean!
Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. We conclude that in order to prove the type of governmental conduct that will support liability in inverse condemnation it is enough to show that the entity was aware of the risk posed by its public improvement and deliberately chose a course of action or inaction in the face of that known risk. Knowing that failure to properly maintain the Project channel posed a significant risk of flooding, Counties nevertheless permitted the channel to deteriorate over a long period of years by failing to take effective action to overcome the fiscal, regulatory, and environmental impediments to keeping the Project channel clear. This is sufficient evidence to support the trial courts 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.
Loading...
0:35
Dec 3 Storm - Culvert Failure, Knight Road, Bainbridge IS.by mobhaul6,845 views
Busted!
modeltrainexpert 6 months ago