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?
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?
Question: And did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert thats depicted there?
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?
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?
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."
D-5 NPDES Coordinator
You would think that this would go against all NPDES Caltrans County of San Luis Obispo and Oceano Community Service District permits involving this drainage system changed by the County to the Pacific Ocean?
The Oceano Community Service District discharges their Well # 8 water into this drainage system daily as Caltrans has been caught on security cameras shoveling and grading their storm water and debris into this storm water drainage channel. Is this legal?
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.