Oceano Train Wrecks and Union Pacific Railroad withholding evidence from discovery in Bookout v. State Of California in exhibit # 579 showing a Union Pacific Railroad Train Wreck around 2001!
The California Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert have viewed this Causation video and Exhibit # 1768 showing no "Date of Stabilization with Caltrans and the Oceano Community Service District drainage changes in 2000-2001-2002. This Appellate Court blame Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange 100% having talked about this use on P. two of their June 28, 2010 California Appellate Court Decision!
The Second Appellate Court Justices--Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert put responsibility for this culvert as stated: "The court found that the Railroad may have been negligent by failing to enlarge the culvert or requiring that its tenant do so." OK--Why is OCSD Dredging Debris into this drainage channel as seen in the OCSD pipe inside this Union Pacific storm water drainage channel?
This Abatable Pollution that OCSD is dredging into the Railroads Storm Water Drainage inlet pipe can be abated--"Maingini v. Aerojet General Corp., supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 1143-1147 ETC. OCSD, County of San Luis Obispo have created this "Continuous Nuisance."
The Oceano Community Service District use of this storm water drainage system as stated by OCSD at an Inverse Condemnation Trial.
P. 383 Answer: We run the well— Right now, were 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 thats 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: Thats correct.
Question: And is that an action which you and your staff took in 2002?
Answer. YES
Is this use of a storm water drainage channel that goes to the Pacific Ocean allowed by the California Fish and Game?
Caltrans, apparently cannot stop State Highway 1 from flooding?
"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"
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."
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." Judge Martin J. Tangeman States: "All Right"
Loading...
1:29
UP Train Wreck in Fontana CA - The scene 17 hours laterby AllenRockwell27,099 views
Link to this comment:
All Comments (0)