10/30/08

Caltrans And County Of San Luis Obispo using State HWY 1 for Storm Water Retention.

Dear Friends
News Media.pdf State Highway 1 in Oceano should not be flooding any time it rains!

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 Caltrans and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention. The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has stated August 5, 2008 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" video
Caltrans as seen in this video has changed the date of stabilization with their history of once removing this debris instead of shoveling it into this storm water drainage channel as seen by the Caltrans Supervisor above!
video
Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman in his August 5, 2008 Trial Court decision regarding Caltrans Maintenance stated: "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."

The San Luis Obispo Superior Court misheard the testimony as truly stated by Caltrans in the Court Reporters Transcripts: “I would imagine that the loader was working in the area. The employee who was running the loader was probably a conscientious employee and wanted to try to help.” Court Reporters Transcripts showing Caltrans intentionally shoveling debris into this drainage channel... November 26, 2008 photos of Caltrans actions after trial.

Caltrans after Judge Tangeman's August 5, 2008 Decision has continued their practice of shoveling storm water debris into their four foot storm water drainage inlet as seen in this November 26, 2008 security video!
video
The State of California, Caltrans at trial Stated on page 920-921 of the Court Reportor's transcript, for July 14, 2008 regarding their shoveling dirt and debris inside the Oceano Community’s Storm Water drainage channel as seen above: “I’m not sure what they’re doing in this picture. It appears that they’re throwing dirt up on the bank at the base of the tree.” 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 where throwing it up on the bank.” Question: So you were keeping it in the four feet that you consider to be Caltrans right-of-way? Answer. “YES” Question: And how often have you engaged – You or your staff engaged in the particular activity? Answer. “How often does it rain down there?” Question: Is it fairly often – Answer: “YES” Question: Based on the rainfall. Answer. “YES, just about every time it rains.”
Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing Caltrans endangering public Safety!... Notice in this video April 2, 2008 Caltrans emplyees actions in drainage channel outside of Caltrans 4 foot right of way?
video
View Arreola v. Monterey County (6th Dist. June 25, 2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 38]. Caltrans actions as seen in the video above goes against California Streets and Highway code sections 720-734 particular, section 725 (Prejudical error) Arreola v. Monterey shows “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].

Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman has stated: "The "Date of Stabilization" approach does not apply in this case. The evidence showed that the last improvements made to the drainage systems were constructed by Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange ("POVE") in the late 1970s”

These maintenance actions by Caltrans have changed the Stabilization of this drainage channel. Caltrans has intentionally raised the State Highway in December 2000 changing the Stabilization of this drainage channel. Caltrans has then raised and lowered this State Highway in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006 again changing the Stabilization. Caltrans was well aware of their changing the drainage stabilization of this drainage system with exhibit # 1757 a March 13, 1985 signed agreement with OCSD. Please view this evidence presented to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court in this PDF file!Caltrans_intentionaly allowing State Highway 1 to flood instead of west side of Oceano Documents.pdf The Residents of Oceano at this time payed in full $5,000.00 Dollars for Caltrans to take full responsibility for this drainage system used by Caltrans.These actions go against California Appeals Arreola v. Monterey County (6th Dist. June 25, 2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722 [122 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 ----Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. These two Appeal case's show this Trial Courts Prejudicial Errors.

The Trial Court erred having commented on this video below of the Oceano Community Service District use of this storm water drainage channel for other uses then storm water. This Community Service District PVC pipe use in a storm water drainage channel-(Public Improvement goes against the most recent California Appeals Court Case Law Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. Notice Caltrans debris at inlet of drainage channel in video! Both Caltrans and OCSD are seen here to be substantial contributors along with the Railroad for these drainage obsticles. OCSD testified July 10, 2008 at trial to making drainage changes pictured below in 2001 and 2002 showing that their was no stabilization to this drainage system. OCSD when asked "Do you have a maintenance plan for the channel or the culvert with respect to debris?" Answered. NO, WE DO NOT. Judge Tangeman stated regarding this testimony. "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance"

video

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" View Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing Caltrans, County and OCSD continuous and repeated conduct endangering public Safety, with no Stabilization in this drainage system pdf... video

This Video December 19 2007 shows Caltrans at 3am in the morning after the State Highway had flooded shoveling and then grading storm water debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel! This changes the stabilization of this intended use of this drainage system!

video

The Public can help by asking Questions of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator.Maldonado@sen.ca.gov and Assemblymember.blakeslee@asm.ca.gov Caltrans and the County of San Luis Obispo could have abated the intentional flooding of California State Highway 1 at any time for a cost of $43,295.00 presented to the Trial Court Exhibit #1790 a September 25, 1987 Letter to the County of San Luis ObispoView

Assemblyman Blakeslee is taking action see his letter April 30, 2009 Assemblyman_Sam_Blakeslee. pdf... View Senator Abel_Maldonado. pdf knowledge. Please view the local News Media Knowledge with Senator.Maldonado and Assembly member Sam Blakeslee Knowledge as presented to them in this PDF file Senator Maldonado is now aware of Caltrans actions from his response May 12, 2009 calling this a very difficult situation.

State Assemblyman Sam Bakeslee and Senator Abel Maldonado--Skoumbas v. City of Orinda 2008 New Knowledge of State Highway 1 flooding June 5, 2009... News Media knowledge of flooding June 5, 2009 and Oceano Community Service District dredging OCSD well #8 water up to State highway 1 June 9, 2009.

Our Local News Media--San Luis Obispo Tribune, McClatchy News, New Times, Five Cities Times Press Recorder, Santa Maria Times are now aware of the County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans and Oceano Community Service District documents showing that they could have abated a small drainage, ponding problem in the mid 80's before OCSD constructed their Well # 8 PVC pipe in this drainage channel a and Caltrans decided to raise State Highway 1 in December 2000 as Caltrans had stated September 15, 1987 Caltrans could do. News Media Knowledge of Oceano Residents Paying $5,000.00 To Caltrans for public Safety.pdf

Trial Court Trannscripts knowledge presented to the San Luis Obispo Tribune July 21, 2009 Public Safety with Freedom of Speach... for County Residents knowledge.

United States Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Lois Capps are now both aware of Caltrans and the County of San Luis Obispo Actions as they both have recently acknowledged documents presented to them.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is aware of Caltrans Actions. See his-- _Response to State HWY 1 Flooding in Oceano...

Trial exhibits presented to Judge Tangeman showing no Stabilization from drainage changes in inverse condemnation with the Caltrans Maintenance Supervisor and his employee's shoveling debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel! Trial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman Exhibits 1516, 1513, 1514, 1468, 1469, 1470 PDF...notice dates on photos and that Caltrans is not removing debris from State Highway 1! Notice flooding of East side of State Highway 1 from Caltrans overlay as seen in Caltrans photos June 13, 2002. Exhibits 1466 and 1467 show Caltrans in 2000 doing proper maintenance to this drainage channel used by Caltrans. Exhibits 1464 and 1465 show Caltrans raising State highway 1 in 2000 before they removed their retaining wall in 2003. Appeal Brief reasons and facts showing Inverse Condemnation Caltrans, County, OCSD Railroad pdf Exhibit # 1488 of Caltrans grading storm water debris into this drainage channel while Caltrans continues to shovel debris into this storm water drainage channel Exhibit #1517.

The Trial Court erred regarding Inverse Condemnation and "date of Stabilization" with the evidence above. The San Luis Obispo Court has ignored our California Constitution (Property Rights Article I Section 19) The Trial Court Stated "Finally,the Court does not find a factual basis to impose liability based upon allegedly increasing elevations of Highway 1 resulting from overlay projects. First, the evidence was mixed at best as to weather the absolute elevation of Highway 1 changed in a substantial way as a result of the "remove and replace" projects." Caltrans had previously addressed their drainage at this location and were aware of their actions as seen in Exhibit # 579 "Overlay From Caltrans in 2001 on HWY 1." At Trial an in exhibits drainage changes by Caltrans are seen in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 showing no Stabilization! The County of San Luis Obispo withheld part of their knowledge of these drainage changes from discovery Exhibit # 579 states: "Caltrans raising Highway 1 at 13th Street (summer 2002) Contributing to elevated flooding (inability for water to cross roadway) on northeast side of Highway 1 (at Oceano Nursery)"County withholding evidence from discovery until December 2, 2008 of flooding before Hwy 1 Baughman

This maintenance practice by Caltrans is seen in the videos and photos; November 26, 2008, April 2, 2008, December 19, 2007, January 4, 2007, March 22, 2005. Caltrans Claims this is normal for Caltrans. View Caltrans January 10, 2005 OCSD meeting with Caltrans talking about drainage. See Caltrans Response to the Regional Water Quality Control Board January 12, 2009 Caltrans-D-5 Pete_Riegelhuth January 12, 2009 Statement mailto... Caltrans Pete Riegelhuth Stated to the RWQCB "it was determined that Department roadway maintenance operations at this location are in compliance with requirements set forth in Department Stormwater Quality Guidance Manuals."

Caltrans shoveling debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel as recently as November 26, 2008. These photos show the Caltrans 4-Foot Right A Way with Caltrans ownership of the Eucylptus trees.

In this video below the RWQCB has allowed the Oceano Community Service District to dredge 4500 gallons of Well water daily through this storm water drainage system from their December 2002 drainage changes.

The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has stated after viewing the evidence. "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance"

View the video below of the Oceano Community Service District Use of this Storm Water Drainage Channel, then remember the quote above by the San Luis Obispo Superior Court "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance"

video

The Trial Court in their quote "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance" Erred in ignoring P. 55 of the July 10, 2008 trial transcript with Oceano Community Service District requesting of the County of San Luis Obispo to change the drainage system used by the County, Caltrans and Railroad Exhibit # 1756 The Oceano Community Service District Letter to The County of San Luis Obispo and Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 stated in Quotes "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."Caltrans and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention basin Exhibit #1756 OCSD Prescriptive Easment.
"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. The District is therefore notifying all those agencies that may be involved in the channel's maintenance of its possible impending use and the degree to which it may be used."

The Trial Court Erred as:
An entity that has power to control a project is liable even if it does not actively participate in it. August 2002 Supplement to the Law of Inverse Condemnation.
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 Trial Court erred 5.2.3 Liability for Improper Maintenance Plan
Failure to act can trigger inverse condemnation liability.
A levee project failed during a heavy rainstorm, flooding plaintiffs' properties. Defendant counties' refusal to keep the channel clear, in clear violation of Army Corps of Engineers guidelines, caused the breach. Their inaction amounted to a deliberate policy because they had known about the flood hazard for over 20 years. Despite the danger, they allowed the channel to fill, in order to meet Fish and Game regulations. The court held for plaintiffs, explaining that, to support inverse condemnation liability, a plaintiff need only show that an "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."

Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) __Cal.App.4th__ [2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4319].

The Trial Court erred 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].

The Court Stated at trial: “I have not yet read Arreola. I understand the argument that’s going on as to strict liability versus standard of reasonableness, in addition to the other arguments raised in Locklin in terms of substantial factor and appointment, Causation. I understand the argument with regard to specific events or nonspecific events. I was just meaning to focus in on Mr. Gregger’s specific arguments that I have not yet read anything on.”

The Trial Court erred with Exhibits 1874 and 1875--County Building and Construction Permits-This is where the County of San luis Obispo required the Oceano Community's Storm Water Retention pond changed March 27, 1985 after the County approved POVE to use the retention pond December 13, 1984 after OCSD had informed the County that POVE could not use the Sanitary Sewer system for wash water from POVE vegetables. The County's letter December 26, 1984 talks about County of San Luis Obispo hazard to health toxic pesticide in a storm water retention. "To be sure there is no hazard to health from possible concentrated amounts of toxic pesticide, we will require a written approval by the County health Department of this on-site retention basin." Please ask questions of Regional Water Quality Control Board?

The Trial Court erred when they stated "The "Date of Stabilization" approach does not apply in this case. The evidence showed that the last improvements made to the drainage systems were constructed by Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange ("POVE") in the late 1970s." This Drainage change/construction below was done by OCSD and Caltrans in December 2002. OCSD has stated that they discharge 4500 Gallons of their well water out of this pipe daily. Notice the debris in front of this pipe! OCSD has testified that they do not maintain this drainage channel!

Regional Water Quality Control Board Questions affecting California residents Health and Safety to the Pacific Ocean that need to be answered pdf Caltrans workers plowing and shoveling flood-related debris from Highway 1 into a roadside ditch as the Regional Water Quality Control Board states below.

"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"

The Regional Water Quality Control Board was able to understand Caltrans maintenance Staff illegal actions as seen by the trial court. Unfortunatly, the trial court has stated. "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance" Caltrans D-5 Pete Riegelhtuth NPDES Coordinator January 12, 2009 E-Mail Statement!...

video

The Trial Court erred as 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. The Trial Court viewed the Videos and Photos of Caltrans actions! See Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing Caltrans endangering public Safety!...

As in Arreola v. County of Monterey County trying to make a Deal ignoring public Safety of County residents .pdf County of San Luis Obispo knowing of theirs and Caltrans responsibilities for their drianage changes! This is a question for our State Representatives and news media to make public as seen in these documents.

The Trial Court erred as seen in the County's February 6, 2007 letter above. “As to the “fix” the defendants did agree that it does not make sense to resolve the plaintiff’s damage claim unless the problem has bee rectified. Otherwise, subsequent flooding will cause subsequent litigation.” The County's Attorney's previously stated July 18, 2006 "It remains my position that the County has a Right to allow its water to flow downhill and it is the responsibility of the downhill property owners to dispose of that water in an appropriate fashion." See Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 783. Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. As to government liability! The February 2, 2009 Trial Court decision has taken away this ability to stand up to Constitutional Rights in California!

The Trial Court has erred Ullery v. County of Conta Costa, supra 2002 Cal.3d 562, It was shown at trial that County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans and OCSD have all designed, Improved, Maintained, altered and repaired this man made drainage channel since installing the Oceano sanitation line in the late 1960's.Caltrans 1953 Aerial Photo Exhibit #1871 Knowledge of Hwy Drainage changes and Baughman Property!...

The Trial Court erred with allowing the County of San Luis Obispo withholding and changing of evidence Defendant_County August 22, 2008_of_SLO_Oppositi... County of San Luis obispo chose not to provide all requested information in discovery until December 2, 2008 several months after trial showing why the County and Caltrans were using State Highway 1 13th and Paso Robles Streets along with Oceano Nursery for storing contaminated storm water.

In Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. As cited to the Trial Court. “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.”Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing Caltrans County and OCSD aware of the risk posed by their improvements Safety!...


The Trial Court erred as cited by the Trial Court as in Skoumbas v. City of Orinda, where Arreola v. County of Monterey is mentioned. "Where a public improvement is unreasonably a substantial cause of the plaintiff’s damage, a public agency may be liable for its role in diverting surface water in order to protect urban areas from flooding. (See Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., supra, 15 Cal.4th 432; Locklin v. City of Lafayette, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327; Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist., supra, 47 Cal.3d 550; Arreola v. County of Monterey, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th 722.) In such cases, “[t]he reasonableness of the public agency’s conduct must be determined on the facts of each individual case, taking into consideration the public benefit and the private damages in each instance.” (Belair, supra, at p. 566.)" The documents withheld from discovery show why Caltrans, County and OCSD have diverted storm water to state Highway 1 instead of to the Baughman property as shown in Caltrans documents!

The Trial Court erred in exhibit #1816 showing Caltrans shoveling storm water debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water drainage Channel outside of Catrans 4 FT Right of way changing the date of Stabilization with Caltrans Maintenance changes. As stated by the Trial Court "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." Exhibit #579 withheld from discovery shows photo Exhibits of Caltrans removing debris until 2002! See PDF of Exhibits.County withholding evidence from discovery until December 2, 2008 of flooding before Hwy 1 Baughman Read the Baughman Questionnaire of County Drainage

video

Caltrans has stated to the RWQCB regarding the videos and photos seen above and below. "Department personnel maintain the entrance to the drainage channel by
shoveling sediment out of the channel and onto the banks. When the rain
event is over, Department staff return to remove the shoveled material."Caltrans-D-5 Pete_Riegelhuth January 12, 2009 Statement mailto...


Notice the two Caltrans workers April 2, 2008 above outside of Caltrans Right-Away shoveling storm water debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel! The State of California Caltrans District 5 regards this as proper maintenance according to the RWQCB response by Caltrans! Notice the next two security videos December 19, 2007 at 3am in the morning and November 26, 2008. Caltrans is not seen removing debris from their actions as stated by Caltrans-D-5-Pete Riegelhulth!

The Trial Court erred in Caltrans maintenance plan exhibit #100 as Caltrans actions goes against Caltrans Stormwater Manuals and Handbooks Caltrans has stated to the RWQCB. "it was determined that Department roadway maintenance operations at this location are in compliance with requirements set forth in Department Stormwater Quality Guidance Manuals."

Caltrans now after Judge Tangeman's August 5, 2008 trial decision have a legal right in California to shovel debris into this and other drainage systems as seen in the video above November 26, 2008 !Caltrans-D-5 Pete Riegelhuth January 12, 2009 Statement the RWQCB Harvey Packard/Roger Briggs mailto...
video

The Trial Court has erred as Caltrans, County, OCSD and Railroads continuous and repeated actions have not stabilized as seen in the video above November 26, 2008 after the video of their same actions April 4, 2008. Caltrans is seen again shoveling contaminated storm water debris outside of their four foot right of way into the Railroads storm water drainage channel. Lee v. Los Angelas County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) as cited by the Trial Court February 2, 2009 (Notice of Entry Of Judgement)

The County of San Luis Obispo Attorney's withheld evidence until December 2, 2008 after trial from POVE, Caltrans, OCSD, Union Pacific Railroad and us showing the County of San Luis Obispo drainage invlovement through the Baughman property. This withholding of evidence would have shown Judge Tangeman why Caltrans choose to raise State Highway 1 in December 2000 and why Caltrans and the County have been using State Highway 1 as a retention basin.County withholding evidence from discovery of flooding before Hwy 1 Baughman

The Trial Court Erred in ignoring P. 55 of the July 10, 2008 trial transcript with OCSD requesting of the County of San Luis Obispo to change the drainage system used by the County, Caltrans and Railroad Exhibit # 1756 The Oceano Community Service District Letter to The County of San Luis Obispo and Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 stated in Quotes "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."Caltrans and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention basin Exhibit #1756 OCSD Prescriptive Easment.


"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. The District is therefore notifying all those agencies that may be involved in the channel's maintenance of its possible impending use and the degree to which it may be used."

The Trial Court erred with the Substantial evidence presented at trial showing Railroad, Caltrans, County and OCSD making substantial design and construction to the drainage system beginning in 1983. Plaintiff produced substantial evidence that defendants had all acted unreasonably in their design, construction and maintenance of this drainage system used by defendants unlike Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District ( 1988) 47 Cal.3d 550,559. In affirming of this cited judgment (4) and (6) are different as evidence produced and whiteness testimony of residency of land where drainage channel is today showed no history of flooding. (6) Caltrans, County and OCSD drainage changes since December 2000-2008 increased the risk of damage and a burden on Plaintiffs property. Law of Inverse Condemnation -- Pollak, Vida, & Fisher

The Trial Court erred in citing Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District ( 1988) 47 Cal.3d 550,559 as a Substantial Cause-and-effect is found in evidence produced of drainage changes by OCSD Exhibits #1756 1983 OCSD had been warned April 29, 1983 that their drainage changes are not the intended use of this drainage system!

The Trial Court erred as with the OCSD Daner Law Firm July 28, 2008 presenting Exhibit #1729 BOOKOUT Exhibit #1729 April 21, 1983 letter.... Exhibit # 1729 is the same as Exhibit #1756. This Exhibit takes all liability away from POVE with OCSD taking the community's storm water drainage channel for other use's then storm water! Exhibit # 1768 OCSD Log Entries show that OCSD could have abated the flooding of State Highway 1

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" (In ruling on a motion for judgment, a trial court must decide questions of credibility, must weigh the evidence and must make findings of fact. Liengenfelter v County of Fresno (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 198.)

The Trial Court erred in blaming POVE for construction in the late 1970's as Judge Tangeman recieved Exhibit #1756 showing OCSD construction in the Drainage channel. Judge Tangeman stated regarding the letter to the County of San Luis Obispo quoted above. "So there's no objection. Seventeen Fifty Six will be recieved. Is this one page or three pages? Mr. Belsher: Three pages, your Honor. The Court: All Right. It's Recieved.Caltrans and County using State Hwy 1 for a storm water retention basin. Judge Tangeman then after Trial took into evidence from the Danor Law Firm/OCSD exhibit #1729 showing OCSD Construction in the Drainage Channel!

video

Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated in his August 5, 2008 Decision regarding this video and photo evidence above P11. "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." (Leaf, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at pp. 408-409.)

This video above was taken showing State Highway 1 Flooding in a non-rain event January 13, 2007 caused by OCSD Well #8 construction in the Railroads drainage channel! Remember the Courts Statement "The Date of stabilization" approach does not apply in this case. The evidence showed that the last improvements made to the drainage systems were constructed by Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange ("POVE") in the late 1970s."

The Trial Court erred with their Acknowledgment of OCSD construction in the Storm water drainage channel and the Substantial amounts of water being discharged daily into this storm water drainage system from this OCSD construction . This shows no date of Stabilization with the OCSD drainage changes since 2001 as viewed in OCSD daily logs presented as evidence to Judge Tangeman Exhibit s #1768.

The trial Court erred on p.82 of the July 10, 2008 trial when exhibit # 1758 was entered into evidence OCSD September 11, 1985 meeting minutes showing OCSD again changing the drainage channel. They state: "To take the discharge line which runs underneath Highway 1 and use it to discharge water near the Railroad Station. GM Hill stated that this would require obtaining easements from the Depot Association and Southern Pacific."

The Trial Court then Erred in 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."

The Trial Court erred when Judge Martin J. Tangeman States P.11: "Plaintiff also alleged that OCSD should be liable because its outfall pipe acted as a dam to capture debris in times of flooding, and/or that at times of discharge from its outfall pipe, debris may have been pushed into the culvert." "In each of these cases, the Court finds that the evidence is too speculative to support liability for inverse condemnation. No studies were undertaken or evidence provided showing the effect, if any, of either of these factors during times of flooding." (Leaf, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at pp. 408-409.)

The Trial Court erred in ignoring expert testomony "OCSD well pipe adding silt and debris during well operation" as OCSD has testified to discharging 4500 gallons of well water daily into this storm water drainage system!Judge Tangeman Exhibits presented to him during trial showing Caltrans County and OCSD aware of the risk posed by their improvements Safety!...

The Trial Court erred as the public entity’s were unable disprove the identified six substantial factors which have caused this flooding condition to exist. These factors are as presented to the trial court:
(1) Blocking the natural drainage way with a pipe too small for the
conditions, (2) OCSD Well #8 Discharge Pipe adding silt and debris during normal well operation, (3) Pipe capacity compromised by poorly designed extension, (4) Upstream watershed conditions worsened, (5) Decrease in storage volume at inlet, and (6) Lack of maintenance.
These six factors were present during all twelve flooding events and form the basis for expert opinion. If plaintiff identifies the substantial factors which cause PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL BRIEF RE: INVERSE CONDEMNATION the injury, the burden shifts to the public entity to produce evidence that would show that other forces alone produced the injury. California State Automobile Assn. v City of Palo Alto (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 474, 483. The defendants or the Trial Court in this case have not! View the studies presented to the Trial Court inwhich the Trial Court could not dispute from any evidence presented by the public enitities. Additional_Calculations.pdf see liability Supplemental_Expert Calculations.pdf see Recent Developments in Inverse Condemnation Law The debris as seen in the photo above being dredged into the Railroads storm water drainage inlet pipe is coming from Caltrans trees in their four foot Right of way.

The Trial Court erred p. 12 in their August 5, 2008 decision regarding Skoumas v. City of Orinda 2008 DJDAR 12042, quoting from Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550,559 "Plaintiff has failed to prove that OCSD's conduct has a "substantial cause-and effect relationship" to Plaintiff's property damage, especially given the likelhood that "other forces alone produced the injury." The Trial Courts should have paid attention to 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 drain pipe 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 Trial Court erred in ignoring Arreola v. County of Monterey(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722. As cited to the Trial Court. “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.

The Trial Court erred as exhibit #1757 in the index July 10, 2008 stated a March 13, 08 Agreement. "There exists an unsatisfactory drainage condition on State Route 1 at Mile Post 12.4" District contemplates the construction of a new fire station at this time, and has expressed a desire to participate in State's contemplated drainage improvement, to provide for additional drainage that will result from the construction of the new fire station." This exhibit P.109 is a March 13th, 1985, Agreement between the State and O.C.S.D. to correct a unsatisfactory drainage condition. The State of California took Oceano Residents money of $5,000.00 and full responsibility for this drainage at this time!---Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) Cal.App.4th-[2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4319]. (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 Trial Court erred as exhibit #1790 P.58 July 10, 2008 showed Caltrans, County, OCSD and Southern Pacific responsibility as: "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 Trial Court erred P. 13 as then stated: "Plaintiff has also failed to show the required connection between County's conduct and plaintiff's damages." Neither County, Caltrans, Railroad or OCSD have been unable to dispute the six substantial factors which have caused the flooding condition to exist!

The Trial Court erred with the sworn testimony of the Oceano Community Service District July 10, 2008 with the exhibits 1341-1343 of OCSD flooding State Highway 1 in their testimony Question P. 86-87 "The Photograph in 1341, is that a fairly -- is that an example of the discharging operation? Answer. YES Question Now, The pipe discharges at the culvert. There is a drainage channel I'm sure you're aware of that runs back to Highway 1? Anwswer. YES.

Judge Martin J. Tangeman P.6 in his August 5, 2008 decision erred with his theory of Date of Stabilization as seen above in his Statements. He admits OCSD construction in the drainage channel since the late 1970s. This goes against his written statement: "The "Date of Stabilization" approach does not apply in this case. The evidence showed that the last improvements made to the drainage system were constructed by Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange ("POVE") in the late 1970s. Fruther, the evidence demonstrated that the flooding problem was relatively consistent and static for several years prior to the date that Plaintiff purchased his property."

The Trial Court has unfairly blamed POVE saying that there has been no changes (Improvements) to this drainage system since the late 1970s???? County approved building permits pertaining to the retention pond used by Caltrans, County, Railroad and OCSD were presented and accepted by Judge Tangeman Exhibit # 1875! The County of San luis Obispo States: "12/13/84 Jak Floor Drain system drainage to sump + then to retention pond approved by Fred Norton, must have approval of this system by Health Dept."

The Trial Court erred P. 134 POVE acknowledged the County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board requiring drainage changes to the retention pond used by Caltrans, OCSD, Railroad and County as drainage change permits showed in 1984 presented to the trial court! The Trial Court erred P. 129 July 10, 2008 in Exhibit # 1776 May 24, 1985 involving County, Caltrans, POVE, RWQCB and the use of State Highway drainage mixed with produce drainage through Railroad property with Caltrans existing easments of use of this drainage system and their responsibility for drainage.

These are quotes from Exhibits presented to the Trial Court exhibit # 1785 May 14, 1987 This is after the County had required drainage improvement changes in 1985 on Railroad property for the retention pond used by the County, Caltrans and OCSD after issueing building permits to POVE!
“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.”Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf

OCSD at trial July 10, 2008 acknowledged that this type of discharge runs back to State Highway 1! View Photo Exhibit #1342 presented to Judge Tangeman of OCSD Drainage Improvements, changes and"obstacles" dredging 4500 Gallons of their Well #8 Water and debris into the Railroads Storm Water Drainage channel daily. This is a substantial cause of how debris gets packed into the Railroads storm water drainage system. The County Health Department has approved this according to OCSD P. 85 July 10, 2008 testimony. See Exhibit Evidence_presented_to_Judge Tangeman showing the effects of OCSD pipe during storms# 1278, 1337, 1338.1342..

Judge Tangeman erred in his August 5, 2008 decision regarding Cal Trans as he States: "There Was Insufficent Evidence To Hold The State of California Liable For Inverse Condemnation" The Court then States. "Nor was there substantial evidence that debris accumulated within the State's right-of-way (as opposed to the debris accumulated on private property outside the boundaries of the right-of -way) contributed in any meaningful way to the problems in the operation of the drainage facilities on Railroad and POVE properties." SeeTrial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman...

Employee Negligence & Vicarious Liability (Cal. Govt. Code 815.2)According to Government Code Section 815.2, a public entity may be held vicariously liable for the act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of employment, notwithstanding provisions of immunity.

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" "The situation has been stable and static such that all of plaintiff's remaining causes of action accrued prior to mid 2002 and therefore are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (CCP &338)" Supplemental Expert Calculations presented to Judge Tangeman.pdf

The Trial Court erred in their belief that Union's operation of Well No. 8. This well is owned by and operated daily by the Oceano Community Service District! The County's Responsibility runs from above this drainage channel to the Pacific Ocean!

The Trial Court States: "Similar to his rulings as to the County and State, Judge Tangeman concluded Plaintiff's evidence was too speculative to support liability against OCSD for its drainage outfall from Well No. 8 or its improvement of real property. As to Union, Judge Tangeman determined the evidence failed to support a basis for liability for improvements made by POVE and found that the improvements were constructed without invoking powers of eminent domain. Judge Tangeman did , however, allude to Union's negligent omission to enlarge the culvert. Union is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings based upon causation issue preclusion. Nevertheless, the statute of limitations applies equally to all Defendents."

March 17, 2009 we have filled an appeal to the February 2, 2009 Judgement decision Supplemental Appeal Brief showing inverse Condemnation actions by Caltrans, County, OCSD and Railroad v3.pdf

See evidence presented to Judge tangeman...See drainage changes by Caltrans in December 2000 to present Exhibit Evidence_presented_to_Judge Tangeman showing the effects of OCSD Well # 8 pipe blocking accumulated debris during storms that could be abated with maintenance # 1278, 1337, 1338.1342.. This evidence presented to judge Tangeman shows no date of Stabilization with OCSD construction in the drainage channel, mixed with caltrans drainage changes since December 2000!

The Trial Court erred as to OCSD Improvements/Construction in the Storm Water Drainage Channel as this was invoking powers of eminent domain beginning in 1983 with OCSD maintaining this system! This is seen in photo exhibit # 579 UPRR withheld from discovery!

The Trial Court erred regarding exhibit # 1730 OCSD Prescriptive Easements over private property P. 10 in their decision statement "There was no evidence offered that the Railroad objected to any uses that were made of its property."The Railroad had warned OCSD on April 29, 1983 of the intended use of this channel. “ It would appear that the channel mentioned in your letter was probably created to handle storm water runoff, and not the purpose to which you now intend to utilize it.” See Photo Exhibit # 579 UPRR

Judge Teresa Estrada Mullaney-in her January 5, 2009 decision cited-Skoumbas v. City of Orinda "Substantial Cause-and effect relationship" and is enough for government liability. 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 drain pipe 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.Caltrans, County Tort Liability Concerns Wests side of Oceano Baughman Property... Judge Tangemen cited in his decision Exhibits 1278, 1337, and 1338 showing OCSD dredging and damming debris with their Prescriptive Easement of this drainage channel from their construction and improvements in this drainage channel! Evidence_Exhibits_presented_to_Judge Tangeman of OCSD pipe in Railroad inlet daming and blocking debris!...

The County of San Luis Obispo withheld substantial evidence from discovery regarding inverse condemnation from Caltrans drainage maintenance changes showing no date of stabilization from Caltrans historic drainage channel maintenance in 2002 and prior. Caltrans after this documented maintenance in 2002 began shoveling and grading debis into this drainage system!

Caltrans stated July 28, 2008. "and no evidence was offered (by any qualified and credible testomony) to show that this pavement increased the height of the road bed." The Trial Court erred in their desision stating "First the evidence was mixed at best as to weather the absolute elevation of Highway 1 changed in a substantial way as a result of the "remove and replace" projects." Here the Trial Court admits the substantial evidence, that there has been no date of Stabilization thus making the State of California (Caltrans) liable for inverse condemnation! County withholding evidence from discovery of flooding before Hwy 1 Baughman The County of San Luis Obispo testimony July 10, 2008 P.40 shows their knowledge of channel maintenance as seen in evidence withheld from discovery of Caltrans maintaining this channel! UPRR photo Exhibit #579 Shows Caltrans accrual date raising Highway 1 changing the date of stabilization as they continued to make drainage changes to 2006. Lee v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 848.

It is unfortunate that I have had to be a whistle blower with local governments actions! The fact that my California Constitutional rights under Article I, Section 19 have been violated and public safety has been put in danger is not acceptable!

The County of San Luis Obispo making drainage changes downstream and then collecting $30,000.00 per year rental income from where this storm water was once stored is unacceptable! See County of San luis Obispo board of Supervisors knowledge in the 2004 drainage study.

By bringing this to the public's attention I have lost my business (Oceano Nursery) and I am now in the process of having to close and sale off my inventory at my other business Plumerias Garden and gifts to fund my appeal filed March 17, 2009. I am faced with $222,316.88 in government legal fees for a small drainage problem in the early eighties that only would have cost the County, Caltrans, OCSD, Railroad and POVE $43,295.00 to fix at the time!

This story with the video and photo evidence above and below, needs to be heard in the National News Media on 60 Minutes, 20/20, ABC News Night line, CBS, Fox News etc.

I would like to thank Dave Congalton and his guests for the first radio interview seen below Dave Congalton on News Talk 920 KVEC: The Public Continues to Turn ...04/02/2009 interview at 4pm Bill Bookout from the Oceano Nursery has fought Cal Trans and the Oceano CSD for years over flooding problems on his property. We'll hear his story. 04/02/2009

The News Media will need to understand the drainage changes west of State Highway 1 made by the State and the County of San Luis Obispo. View Caltrans_1953_Aerial_Photo_Knowledge of Hwy Drainage and Baughman Property!... of Caltrans and County drainage changes to this storm water drainage channel and the Pacific Ocean! The States Highway drainage when this problem is finally corrected will have to have the Storm water stored on County property west of State Highway 1 in order not to pollute the Pacific Ocean or flood properties West of State Highway 1 as has been Caltrans and the County of San Luis Obispo Concerns! This may have an impact on the Oceano Airport becoming wetlands and possibly having to change the State Parks Dunes entrenance south of its current location for environmental concerns! View video

The video above from an OCSD Meeting January 10, 2005 Exhibit # 1804 explains the Oceano Community's drainage system and why State Highway 1 is flooding when it rains! Oceano residents in this video talk about the following photos of the OCSD white pipe being illegal with OCSD Stating: "that issue is being addressed"! OCSD States that they have no authority to put a pipe on someone elses property? OCSD talks about Paso Robles and thirteenth Streets flooding at the same time State Highway 1 Floods. OCSD talks about their observing the clearing out eucalyptus debris from the ditch on Railroad property and that it stops the flooding. OCSD talks about the benefits of no flooding by pressure washing out the culvert with the sand and debris in it along with OCSD Staff recommending putting a grate in front of the Railroad pipe!

The County Of San Luis Obispo January 10, 2005 talks about their recent requirements for curb gutter and sidewalk and problems this is causing. They mention the cost of Storing their water coming off of County streets on the west side of the State Highway 1 from a drainage study and that being about a Million Dollars. They mention the cost of the drainage study they had recently done. The County talks about their Liability. The County talks about regulations they had made just two or three years prior and then takes some blame, they then blame Cal Trans, the Railroad and the vegetable Exchange?

The County states in their Drainage Study "2.1.4.6" "Caltrans The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) operates drainage facilities that are associated with the State Highway System. Highway 1 experiences flooding near 13th and 19th Street. Caltrans currently clears the drainage channel between 13th Street and the railroad."

Cal Trans States January 10, 2005 that by law they will not take the lead for a flood control problem. They state if they fix this drainage problem they would be responsible for this system from beginning to end, meaning to the Ocean? Cal Trans, talks about their elevation changes in December 2000 to the State Highway and correcting these changes in 2003 along with changes that need to be made to a Sidewalk they had recently installed. They State that they have communicated with the Railroad and that the Railroad would be willing to participate in a drainage solution. (This Leaves the only party that does not want to fix the unsafe and unsanitary Storm Water Drainage problem involving County Airport property west of highway 1 to be San Luis Obispo County? See Exhibit Quotes Below 1785,1795, 1786, 1788, 1789,1796 Please view this Oceano Community's Service District meeting video January 10, 2005. The First speaker is the County of San Luis Obispo pay close attention to the County's statements followed by Cal Trans. OCSD_FLOOD_MEETING_JANUARY_10__2...

The San Luis Obispo Superior Court erred when they mislabeled this substantial evidence of causation of flooding with these-33 photo Trial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman... Showing no Date Of Stabilization of the Oceano Storm Water drainage channel since Caltrans drainage changes in December 2000 and 2002. These photo documents stated "Photos Relating To O.C.S.D. Involvement" when they should of said Caltrans Negligence in raising a State Highway as seen in exhibit # 1470 and then #1516 of Caltrans supervision Shoveling and Grading Storm Water Debris into a Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel outside of their Right of Away! Exhibits 1463- 1516 Show Caltrans raising State Highway 1 beginning in 2000 while maintaining the Storm Water drainage channel removing debris at this time and then Grading and shoveling Debris into this channel since! This action by Caltrans since December 2000 violates Article I, Section 19 Of the California Constitution as this Evidence shows intentional negligence and is a Substantial Cause of the flooding of my property and State Highway 1!

The Trial Court erred regarding Substantial Factors/Causation
Judge Tangeman States Regarding Caltrans: “Nor was there Substantial evidence that debris accumulated within the States right- of-way (as opposed to the debris accumulated on private property outside the boundaries of the right-of-way) contributed in any meaningful way to the problems in the operation of the drainage facilities on Railroad and POVE properties.”

1) Caltrans Raised State Highway 1 in December 2000 Exhibit # 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, Caltrans photos Exhibit # 1468, 1469, 1470 of flooding east side of Highway
2) Caltrans changing drainage maintenance of drainage channel as exhibits in 2000 showed Caltrans maintenance of this channel. Exhibit # 1466, 1467,
3) Caltrans Railroad drainage inlet change December 2002 with Concrete bags installed at Railroad 24 inch pipe in channel outside of Caltrans Right-Away. Exhibit #1490, 1491
4) Caltrans Raising State highway 1 13th and Paso Robles Streets in 2003 Exhibit # 1471, 1472, 1473,1474,
5) Caltrans 2003 Drainage Change in removing a retaining wall on their property without removing debris behind wall, then allowing debris to wash into State Highway and then be graded into drainage channel as Exhibits presented to the trial court showed Exhibit #1463, 1464, 1475, 1476, 1477,1478,1479,1480, 1481,1482,1483, 1484,1485,1486,1487, 1488
6) Caltrans retaining wall Debris left in hwy and graded to side of State Highway not removed by Caltrans allowed to wash into drainage channel Exhibit # 1475, 1476, 1478, 12/29/04 Exhibit # 1479, 1477 12/31/04 Exhibit # 1480,1481, 1/1/05 Exhibit # 1482, 1/3/05 Exhibit # 1483 1/7/09 Exhibit # 1484, 1485, 1486, 1487, 1488 3/22/2005 1530, 1531, 1535 1/26/2006 , 1533,1536 1/27/08 1527 1/26/08 1520 2/8/2007
7) Caltrans Raising State highway 1 in 2006 Exhibit #1498, 1500, 1501, 15021503, 1504,1505, 1506,1507,
8) Caltrans shoveling debris into drainage channel 1/4/2007 Exhibit # 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519 of Caltrans supervisor shoveling debris into drainage channel. Exhibit 1513, 1514, 1515 of Caltrans employees shoveling debris into drainage channel
9) Caltrans Shoveling Debris into drainage channel Exhibit # 1541
10) Caltrans four foot Right away Exhibit # 1520 1527, 1530, 1537,1538,1539, 1540, 1543, 1542, 1525

Judge Tangeman States Regarding Oceano Community Service District:

11) OCSD Drainage Change 2001, 2002 Exhibit # 1768 Phil Davis Log Entries to Railroad drainage channel and inlet.
12) OCSD flushing debris from their property into drainage channel Exhibit # 1450 1/19/08 1541 6/7/08
13) OCSD POVE Pond Maintenance Exhibit # 1433, 1434, 1447, 1440, 1442, 1443, 1436,1437, 1439, 1444 1/3/2005
14) OCSD maintenance of their PVC pipe in Drainage Channel Exhibit # 1425, 1426, 1427 1/7/08
15) The Trial Court Erred with the July 10, 2008 Court Reporters Transcript regarding OCSD pipe being installed in 1985 Exhibit # 1758 As Caltrans Photos Exhibits # ?????? show P82
16) The Trial Court Erred P. 83-88 when they herd testimony of discharge into the storm water drainage system by OCSD P. 84 no permission. P85 Permission from the County Health Department exhibits 1331 and 1332 admitted. 1336-1337-1338 admitted and seen by the court 1336-1343 OCSD is seen to maintain this channel as the Trial Court saw
17) The Trial Court Erred P.96-1112 OCSD Maintaining pipe/drainage channel removing leaves and branches with the rest of the daily logs showing maintenance that did not exist prior to 2001!
18) The Trial Court from the OCSD Testimony P11 and 12 Of their August 5, 2008 decision ignored the real culprits using the drainage channel by altering the purpose of this channel!
19) The Trial Court erred with the minutes of Exhibit # 1764 p.110 July 10, 2008
20) The Trial Court Erred P 112 July 10, 2008 as they later admitted one Oceano Drainage Questionnaire showing the relevance of this exhibits from testimony by Caltrans!
21) The Trial Court Erred in their July 10, 2008 Statement P. 7 “In addition, Mr. Davis testified that plaintiff had a history of complaining about flooding prior to December 20, 2002, when he met the plaintiff on site and cut the Oceano Community Services District (“OCSD)” drainage pipe in the vicinity of the culvert.” Documents withheld from discovery showed flooding concerns on Fountain Ave and Airpark involving Mr. Davis. P. 102 “might flood his property” P.103 July 10, 2008 Answer “It is in – I think Mr. Bookout thought that possibly the pipe going inside the culvert was restricting the flow.”
22) The Trial Court Erred P7 in their August 5, 2008 in regards to Mr. Suttons Testimony as he was not employed by POVE in 2000. Mr. Sutton did not arrive in Oceano in 1996!
23) The Trial Court Erred P. 8 regarding testimony of Mr. Brebes who retired from Caltrans in 2002. Exhibits1766 and 1767 that the court sustain show brebes involvement in flooding on Fountain Ave and Airpark. Documents withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo show Caltrans Raising the Highway with Brebes involved in this drainage change.

Judge Tangeman States Regarding the County of San Luis Obispo “there was no showing of the County’s responsibility for designing or maintaining the drainage channel or drainage facilities immediately downstream from Plaintiff’s property.” He ignores drainage changes P20 July 10, Statements by County!

The Trial Court erred in their statement regarding Inverse Condemnation. “In addition, however, there is substantial evidence which contradicts Plaintiff’s late proffered explanation. For example, substantial evidence was introduced by Plaintiff that this flooding problem had existed at this location for decades, going back at least to the 1980s.” This information came from the County of San Luis Obispo Attorney Clay Hall as provided to him by the County of San Luis Obispo, as the County chose to withhold additional information from discovery provided December 2, 2008. View County trying to make a Deal ignoring public Safety of County residents .pdf


The Trial Court erred as stated by Clay Hall February 6, 2007 “As to the “fix” the defendants did agree that it does not make sense to resolve the plaintiff’s damage claim unless the problem has bee rectified. Otherwise, subsequent flooding will cause subsequent litigation.” The February 2, 2009 Trial Court decision has taken away this ability to stand up to Constitutional Rights in California!

24) County Of San Luis Obispo Testimony P. 34 The Court: “The “Problem Area” Being Highway 1 And 13th And Paso Robles.” The Witness: The Problem – As Far as fixing the drainage on the lot, the – The problem was the impact of the fix on the downstream property owners, not that – not that something down there needed to be fixed in order to solve the problem upstream.”

The Trial Court States P. 32 Yes. “And so why is flooding on Fountain Avenue relevant to this particular, given the witness’s answer that he’s not familiar with that issue?”

Ms. Thurmond P. 33 “The Drainage problem, we haven’t even defined the drainage problem. Were getting hung up here. The problem is flooding of Bill Bookout’s property. The problem is not the overall Drainage problem in Oceano. We could go on for years on that.

The Trial Court: “No, I understand. But I thought we had limited the questions to the Bookout Flooding problem.
25) Exhibit # 1769 Oceano Drainage and Flood Control Study. This Study explains the County’s Responsibility down stream.
26) Exhibit # 1769 shows County Changing of evidence Baughman property 2002 Community Drainage & Flood Control Study Questionnaire Withheld from discovery by County of San Luis Obispo. This Questionnaire was provided after trial and admitted into evidence.
27) Exhibit # 1875 Construction Permit
28) Exhibit # 1762 County Drainage Channel Behind Fountain Avenue next to Baughman Property Questionnaire withheld by County from Discovery!
29) Exhibits #1766 and 1767 1770 Judge Tangeman “Sustain”--- County’s responsibility for designing or maintaining the drainage west of State Hwy 1!
30) Exhibit # 1790 9/25/87 County’s responsibility for designing or maintaining the drainage West of State Highway 1!
31) Exhibit 1783 County Knowledge per P. 15 County Testomony letter dated 7/86?
32) Exhibit 1731 County Knowledge per P. 17
33) The Trial Court Erred stating Plaintiff has failed to prove defendants have acquired a prescriptive easement Exhibit # 1756 July 10, 2008 Court reporters transcript P.55 By Mr. Belsher “Seventeen fifty six, the first letter is a letter to the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control District and it relates to discharges at the problem area.” The Court “ So now there’s no objection. Seventeen Fifty Six will be received. Is this one page of three Pages? Mr. Belsher “Three pages your Honor.” The Court All Right. It’s Received.” To the County, POVE and Railroad notice of use of drainage channel
34) Exhibit 1787-1790 Caltrans Drainage responsibility for repair to drainage system proposal replacement of the drainage culvert.
35) Exhibit 1805 Curb Gutter and sidewalk drainage changes U.S.H.A.
36) Exhibit # 1874 Admitted P. 65 County Building permits 1875 construction permits
37) P66 July 10, 2008 County attorney admits County drainage system leading to State Hwy 1
38) The Trial Court erred July 10, 2008 P.75-76-77 when they took Mr. Priddy as an expert at the POVE pond into consideration

The Trial Court erred in “Date of Stabilization” with admitting into evidence Exhibit #579 UPRR as this document was withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo showing Caltrans drainage changes in 2001 as stated: “HWY 1 not adequate drainage on HWY 1 under the train track and overlay from Caltrans in 2001 on HWY 1” This overlay drainage change by Caltrans was not mentioned at trial and is directly linked to exhibit #1789 September 15, 1987 Caltrans Stated: “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) Exhibit #1773-1774-1775-1777-1778-1779-1780-1781-1783-1784-1785-1786-1787-17881790-1791-1792-1793-1794-1795-1796-1797-1798and 1800 the OCSD meeting transcript testimony of Caltrans January 10, 2005

The Trial Court erred in “Date of Stabilization” with admitting into evidence Exhibit #579 UPRR as this document show a train derailment at the drainage channel inlet pipe for Union Pacific. Engineers for all defendants have never brought the train derailment into evidence?

The Trial Court erred in “Date of Stabilization” with admitting into evidence Exhibit #579 UPRR that had not previously been disclosed with other documents showing OCSD knowledge from one of their Previous OCSD directors Concerns of drainage as seen in Caltrans documents exhibit # 1789-1773-1774-1775-1777-1778-1779-1780-1781-1783-1784-1785-1786-1787-17881790-1791-1792-1793-1794-1795-1796-1797-1798and 1800 the OCSD meeting transcript testimony of Caltrans January 10, 2005 (Caltrans Tort Liability concers of Flooding the Baughman property)

The Trial Court erred in “Date of Stabilization” with admitting into evidence Exhibit #579 UPRR as the other 400 + documents withheld from discovery that went with the County’s possession of this documents showed the County’s drainage path and changes to the Pacific Ocean with whiteness’s Flooding west of State Highway 1. Exhibits dealing with #579 west of State highway 1 involving the County of San Luis Obispo 1792-1793-1794 Caltrans Brebes-1795-1789-1790-1791-1796-1797-1798-1799-1801-1802-1803-1815-1816-1761-1762-1764-1765-1766 Sustained by the Court 1767 Sustained by the Court1768-1770Sustained by the Court1774-1775-1776-1777-1778-1779-17801783-1785-1786- 1875-1877-1879-1880-1881-1882-1883-1884-1885-
(Leaf, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at pp. 408-409.)

If any of the above dispute the statements or evidence in this blog; please do not hesitate in contacting me or the News Media! It is my intentions to see this problem fixed once and for all! It is unfortunate to see Caltrans actions in these video's affecting public safety. I can be reached at 1-805-773-2089

Pay attention to 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!

The County of San Luis Obispo Attorney's chose to withhold evidence from Judge Martin J. Tangeman which we received after trial July 30, 2008 and December 2, 2008 showing County knowledge of Caltrans raising State Highway 1 6-10 inches since December 2000 and 2002 as Caltrans had stated they 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. View this video below December 10, 2006 from Caltrans no longer mainaining the Drainage channel since December 2002! Notice the dangers to public safety becouse Caltrans does not want to flood the Baughman property as seen in the documents withheld from discovery by the County admitted into evidence after trial!

From the Court Reporter Transcript July 10, 2008 of OCSD. Question Do you have any maintenance plan for the channel or the culvert with respect to debris? Answer. NO, WE DO NOT.

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.

There was no evidence presented by any of the defendents of State Highway 1 having any flooding problem other then the early 80's before Caltrans raised the State Highway in 2000-2002-along with OCSD, County and Caltrans making drainage changes in 2001 and 2002! OCSD testified "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"

From the Court reporter transcript Thursday July 10, 2008 The San Luis Obispo Court heard the following testimony placing the OCSD pipe directly in the Railroads Storm Water Drainage Channel and not in the Vicinity as the Court had stated in their August 5, 2008 decision! P. 83 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 – P.86 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 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 did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert that’s depicted there? Answer. yes. P. 85 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."


In the Court case cited by Judge Teresa Estrada -Mullaney and not Judge Tangeman Skoumbas v. City of Orinda this Diversion of surface waters into a natural watercourse creates liability. With discharge into a private pipe as seen above shows OCSD Liability. As this pipe has been in this channel over five years OCSD has obtained a prescriptive easement with Caltrans knowledge. View exhibit evidence presented to Judge Tangeman...showing no "Date of Stabilization" with Caltrans Grading and Shoveling debris into the Railroads storm water drainage channel and OCSD pipe blocking debris with their pipe in the Railroads inlet and drainage channel!

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 drain pipe 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.California’s Flood Liability

In Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) Shows Caltrans, County and OCSD liability were all 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. --

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.

The above drainage changes by our local government are un acceptable knowing the safety problems that they would be creating on State Highway 1. When the Caltrans photo above was taken in 1988. Caltrans had drainage concerns west of State Highway 1 on the Baughman property as seen in the documents that the County of San Luis Obispo chose to withhold from discovery until aftet trial and December 2, 2009 five months after our trial!Caltrans_with_County_of_San_Luis... See Lagoon Changes by State and County State__Caltrans_County__RWQCB__D... PDF]

By standing up for my Constitutional Rights Judge Tangeman has ignored the evidence presented to him at trial and immediately after trial.Trial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman... As punishment I have now received bills from our local government of a total of $222,316.68 Caltrans $122,050.42 The County of San Luis Obispo of $31,321.18 The Oceano Community Service District $45,257.87 And Union Pacific Railroad $23,778.21 Trial_Costs_endangering_public_f... Attached in this PDF file County_trying_to_make_a_Deal.pdf is a County July 18, 2006 letter blaming Caltrans for dropping the ball with a permanent fix of State Highway 1 Drainage that would have only cost as written to Glenn Priddy of the County on September 25, 1987 $43,295.00. From these Caltrans documents it shows Caltrans does not want to fix this minor flooding problem at the time because of flooding the Baughman property and the County of San Luis Obispo does not want to purchase property to store the Highway 1 Storm Water west of State Highway 1


When the San Luis Obispo Superior Court States February 2, 2009 "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance" then it is time to make the public aware that their Constitutional Rights have been taken away in San Luis Obispo County and its time to make this a National News Story!

The Trial Court erred regarding "Belair, Locklin, and Bunch embody policies that recognize that inverse condemnation recovery be equitable, that support the importance of public works projects, and that ensure that the public entity be liable only for the proportionate amount of damage caused by its actions. A conclusion furthers these policies and also has the further laudable effect of encouraging public entities to engage in flood control efforts while discouraging them from making uncompensated use of private property." (Odello Brothers v. County of Monterey (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 778, 792.)

Exhibit # 1769 February 2004 San Luis Obispo County Oceano Drainage Flood Control Study
Bookout_EstradaTentative_Ruling.... Blames POVE 100% even though Caltrans was caught shoveling and grading storm water debris into the Railroads storm water drainage channel, with OCSD using this channel to dredge 4500 gallons of well water daily? Trial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman... Showing Caltrans negligence!
BOOKOUT_-_County_nonsuit_opp.pdf

Prescriptive easement notice by OCSD to County, POVE, And Railroad Exhibit #1758, 1730, 1729 to use drainage channel before OCSD installed their PVC pipe several Years latter! No Date of Stabilization with Caltrans Raising State Highway 1 in 2000, 2002 removing a retaining wall in 2003 grading and shoveling debris till November 26, 2008 and raising State Highway 1 again in 2006!
BOOKOUT_-_Dec_of_Bookout_in_resp... October 16, 2008 County Discovery Letter!

Judge_Final_Ruling_by_County_Feb... Stating "County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance" Exhibit #1768 Phil Davis Log Entries. Exhibit # 1789 Caltrans Intentionally Raising State Highway 1 in December 2000 as the Had Stated in September 15, 1987 “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.” Exhibit # 1800 January 10, 2005 OCSD Transcript of Drainage meeting showing flooding could be Abated--Exhibit #1804 January 10, 2005 Video of OCSD meeting! Exhibit 1816 Excerpts from Flooding video footage!
P.7 Mr. Sutton was not employed by POVE in 2000! In 1996 Mr. Sutton did not live in Oceano! Mr. Brebes as County Documents withheld from discovery show his involvement with flooding of Fountain Avenue! Mr. Brebes is in the County's photo Documents withheld from discovery raising State Highway 1 in December 2000! Mr. Davis was involved in Fountain Avenue Flooding documents withheld from Discovery by County of San Luis Obispo Baughman Property!

Evidence_Exhibits_presented_to_Judge Tangeman Baughman Property flooding Exhibit # 1278, 1337, 1338... Exhibits presented to the Court 1278 shows a train de-railment with the OCSD pipe directly in the Railroads drainage pipe inlet! Exhibit #1337 dated during a storm event in 2002 shows the OCSD pvc pipe directly in the Railroad drainage inlet pipe with a water line on the pipe showing Oceano Nursery not flooding. Exhibit # 1338 is immediatly after a rain event showing debris blocked at the OCSD PVC pipe with the OCSD pipe in the Railroads storm water pipe inlet!


Bookout_-_Public_Record_Request_... After trial for documents withheld from discovery by County of San Luis Obispo. Photos of Caltrans maintaining Storm water drainage channel in 2002 and OCSD Director Baughman Property flooding west of State Highway 1 as stated in questionnaire redacted by County his name and address. County changed his statement in their drainage survey from 2002!

Judge_Mullaney_Judgement_Februar... Blames POVE 100%. Under Causation the Skoumbas case, citing Locklin v. Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 327, 367 added --leaving out Belair, Lockilin and Bunch embody policies that recognize inverse condemnation!


Trial_Brief.pdf That the County of San Luis Obispo, Oceano Community Services District, and/or State of California - Department of Transportation owned or controlled the property which caused the dangerous condition;
Supplemental_Trial_Brief_v3.pdf SUPPLMENTAL_Exhibit_List_07_07_0... Exhibit # 1878 Keith Crowe Causation. 1884, July 25, 1999 Letter to Supervisor Achadjian
AMENDED_MASTER_EXHIBIT_LIST__JDP...

Exhibits into evidence showing OCSD drainage changes since December 2002. OCSD obtaining their prescriptive Easment Exhibit # 1729, #1730, OCSD told Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 in a letter

"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. Research, 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 weather, in its present state of maintenance; it can adequately carry the quantity of water that will be discharged."

Exhibit #1758 easment, along with Caltrans Drainage changes Exhibits 1554-1622, 1766, 1767, February 5, 1999 drainage meeting Fred Brebes Exhibit #1767 County_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman

Evidence_Exhibits_presented_to_Judge Tangeman Baughman Property flooding Exhibit # 1278, 1337, 1338... Exhibits presented to the Court 1278 shows a train de-railment with the OCSD pipe directly in the Railroads drainage pipe inlet! Exhibit #1337 as seen below during a storm event in December 2002 shows the OCSD pvc pipe directly in the Railroad drainage inlet pipe with a water line on the pipe showing Oceano Nursery not flooding. Exhibit # 1338 below is immediatly after a rain event showing debris blocked at the OCSD PVC pipe with the OCSD pipe in the Railroads storm water pipe inlet! As Judge Tangeman has commented on both of these photos; he was aware in his decision that this OCSD pipe does act as a dam and is directly in the Railroads drainage inlet!


Judge Martin J. Tangeman in his August 5, 2008 decision stated: "Plaintiff also alleged that OCSD should be liable because its outfall pipe acted as a dam to capture debris in times of flooding, and/or that at times of discharge from its outfall pipe, debris may have been pushed into the culvert." "In each of these cases, the Court finds that the evidence is too speculative to support liability for inverse condemnation. No studies were undertaken or evidence provided showing the effect, if any, of either of these factors during times of flooding." These photos evidence were presented to the Trial Court showing the Nursery not flooding in December 2002 with this OCSD pipe damming debris! The Trial Court Stated this Pipe was not in this drainage channel is wrong as seen in these photos. View exhibit evidence presented to Judge tangeman... Recent Developments in Inverse Condemnation Law

The Trial Court saw and heard testimony from Fred Brebes that Caltrans maintained the Oceano Community's Storm water Drainage Channel; as Caltrans documents from Fred Brebes of Caltrans Dated November 30, 1988 Shows Caltrans doing maintenance in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987! This photo and records were provided to the San Luis Obispo Court showing Caltrans Maintenance which Caltrans has not done since December 2002 other then push, plow and grade debris into the Oceano Community Storm Water Drainage channel as seen in prior videos and photos above. Judge Tangeman Blames POVE for the County of San Luis Obispo issuing them building permits in the 1970's! Please view these documents showing Caltrans prior maintenance, communication with the County and OCSD and their drainage changes that show why Caltrans is storing Contaminated Storm Water on State Highway 1.Caltrans, County_... This photo was taken by Caltrans in 1988 before OCSD made their Drainage changes; blocking debris in this channel!


Caltrans_with_County_of_San_Luis... OCSD_Attorney_Conflict_Phillips-... Hiring bookkeeper fiancee
Judge_Final_Ruling_by_County_Feb... Decision February 2, 2009

The San Luis Obispo Court January 5, 2009 cited see Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) which referenced a case (Keys V. Romley) The August 5, 2008 court decision cited Skoumas v. City of Orinda 2008. The Skoumbas case explains Government Liability! The August 5, 2008 Skoumas case is not a trial case? Judge Tangeman Saw these Video's of Caltrans shoveling debris into this drainage system during a rain storm and then blames POVE 100% for the flooding of State Highway 1! [PDF]
Recent Developments in Inverse Condemnation Law

Caltrans from the first video above and actions below needs to be aware from California Government Code 725 "it is unlawful for any person to do any of the following Acts: ("b")Obstruct any natural water course so as to: "(1) Prevent, impede or restrict the natural flow of waters from any State Highway into and through such water course, unless other adequate and proper drainage is provided." "(2)"Cause waters to be impounded within any State Highway, to the damage of the Highway.""(3)" "Cause interference with, or damage or hazard to public travel." See Evidence of Exhibits presented to Judge Tangeman of Caltrans grading and shoveling storm water debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel!...

Caltrans has stated in an email to the Regional Water Quality Control Board January 12, 2009 as seen at the very bottom of this document--"Due to past litigation, the Department is no longer responsible or allowed to maintain the channel located off of the Caltrans right of way." Caltrans prior to this Supervisor in 2002 had maintained this Storm Water Drainage Channel as seen in these Caltrans documents presented to the San Luis Obispo Court-Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf --Caltrans, County Actions... This is negligent drainage system maintenance affecting public safety! 1985_RWQCB_Drainage_Change.pdf 1985 County/RWQCB Drainage Change-Pond OCSD Pipe-County permitsRWQCB_Public_Safety_Questions_Fe... February 18, 2009 OCSD dredging debris

On February 13 and 16th 2009 State Highway 1 my property and the Oceano Community has flooded again. Caltrans according to KCOY 12 News has made a statement. "We are working with the County of San Luis Obispo and the Oceano Community Service District to find a long term solution to this flooding issue." Again please view Caltrans PDF file Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf showing why Caltrans is storing Storm Water on State Highway 1. If Pove was responsible as Judge Tangeman has stated then Caltrans would be requiring them to fix this problem instead of working with the County and OCSD! Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange does not shovel, dredge or Grade Debris into this Storm Water Drainage Channel as seen above and below and presented evidence to this Court! In the Santa Maria Times it was stated "The judge also wrote she followed Tangeman’s ruling that POVE was primarily responsible for the damage to Bookout’s property in her decision to throw out the remaining claims." (Dangerous Condition , Nuisance And Trespass)

This Drainage Maintenance change by OCSD November 30, 2001 December 20, 2002 can not be legal in a Storm water drainage Channel? The substantial cause and effects from this pipe is the cause of State Highway 1 Flooding today. Not POVE as Stated above by Judge Tangeman. The County, Caltrans and OCSD installation; knowledge and unreasonable use of this drainage system affects public safety on State Highway 1. This pipe was installed for local Government use since the County of San Luis Obispo and the Regional Water Quality Control Board required the POVE pond raised in 1985. Caltrans maintained this drainage channel from 1983-2002 as Caltrans and County documents attached show.

I am asking for the Public help in seeing that this OCSD pipe is removed along with the sedimentation and debris that has been graded, shoveled and Dredged into this County, Caltrans, OCSD Drainage system by Caltrans and OCSD.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board has apparently approved this Pipe in the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel endangering Public Safety on State Highway 1 from OCSD being allowed to dredge Storm Water Debris into the Railroads Storm Water Drainage Channel Mixed with 4500 Gallons of OCSD well Water daily. see OCSD (9/08) Letter to the RWQCB that misstates where this water is stored. See Roger Briggs letterWater Board Comment Letter with Revision Tables (10/ 2/08) See RWQCB_Public_Safety_Questions_Fe... and their knowledge and permitting of this drainage system! See the RWQCB documents allowing POVE to use the County, Caltrans and OCSD Storm Water Retention pond to wash chemicals off of their produce to mix with Storm water that Caltrans and OCSD then pump out of this Storm Water Retention Pond to the Pacific Oceano as seen in videos below! 1985_RWQCB_Drainage_Change.pdf

At Trial July 10, 2008 Judge Tangeman Stated p. 34 to the County Of San Luis Obispo (Glenn Priddy) "The problem area" being Highway 1 and 13th and Paso Robles." The County of San Luis Obispo responded P.35. "The problem--As far as fixing the drainage on the lot, the --The problem was the impact of the Fix on the Downstream Property owners, not that--something down there needed to be fixed in order to solve the problem upstream." See Documents withheld from Discovery by County of San Luis Obispo County_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_... See photos of the Baughman property flooding Highway 1 to the Baughman property!...

According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Sorrel Marks)January 5, 2009 this pipe in the Oceano Community's Storm Channel is legal and allowed by the RWQCB and has been waived by their board. "The Central Coast Water Board conditionally waives waste discharge requirements (permits) for well water discharges to ground, where the discharges do not pose significant threat to water quality. The waiver (Resolution No. R3-2008-0010) is available at the following link."


The Trial Court erred when Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated: "There Was Insufficient Evidence To Hold Oceano Community Service District Liable For Inverse Condemnation" In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of the drainage outfall from Well #8 in the vicinity of the culvert." (see photo above) see Judge Tangeman Ruling August 5, 2008 The_Judges_Decision_not_looking_... Notice Drainage pipe Inlet as presented to Court video below!

video
You will notice from this video presented to the San Luis Obispo Court of OCSD Well # 8 dredging of debris and blockage from this Well during a non rain event; with the water backing up to State Highway 1. This drainage change by OCSD takes away any liability POVE might of ever had in Judge Tangeman's decision above. It is time for public Safety to see that this PVC pipe is removed from this Storm Water Drainage Channel! On February 17, 2009 during a rain event OCSD was videoed and photos taken of this pipe continuing to dredge debris into this storm water drainage system. Local media and the Regional Water Quality Control board were contacted and provided with Photos of this for the public knowledge!

The Trial Court erred when the Court ignored the evidence of the Oceano Community's RR Storm Water Drainage Channel was never designed for this OCSD PVC pipe placed in the Railroads storm water drainage inlet pipe and then cut five feet short of the RR pipe in December 2002 with Caltrans installing Concrete sedimentation bags! The Railroad had warned OCSD on April 29, 1983 of the intended use of this channel. “ It would appear that the channel mentioned in your letter was probably created to handle storm water runoff, and not the purpose to which you now intend to utilize it.”

OCSD told Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 in a letter "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. Research, 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 weather, in its present state of maintenance; it can adequately carry the quantity of water that will be discharged."


This PVC pipe restricting water and blocking debris does not belong in a Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel as per Judge Tangeman's decision above stating that "POVE was primarily responsible for damage to Plaintiff's property." OCSD never mentioned to the Railroad of putting this pipe in their drainage channel in 1983 and acknowledged in 1985 they would need easements for this pipe from the Depot Association and Southern Pacific! Exhibit to the Court # 1758

The fact that Caltrans, County and OCSD have knowledge of the use of this pipe in this storm water drainage channel is negligent drainage system maintenance! OCSD has obtained a prescriptive easement having this pipe in this channel over five years! Judge Tangeman stated "In this case, none of the public entities claim a prescriptive right." This is wrong with OCSD claiming use of this channel for other purposes than Storm Water runoff acknowledging September 11, 1985 that they would need an easement to use the railroads property! This pipe has been in this channel over 5 years! The following documents show County building permits, RWQCB knowledge of Caltrans, County and OCSD using this drainage system even after requiring POVE to raise the outlet of the retention pond that Caltrans, County, OCSD, Railroad and POVE all use! Caltrans is now using this channel to store debris off of State Highway 1 since December 2000! It is not known 100% if the RWQCB has permitted the OCSD PVC pipe in the Storm Water Drainage Channel? See Evidence Presented to Judge TangemanTrial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman...


The California Department of Transportation State: Regarding Prescriptive Easement July 28, 2008. "A land owner has the right to pass upstream waters off of his property so long as his conduct is not unreasonable. See Locklin v City of Lafayette (1994)" "Utilizing an existing natural watercourse for drainage of surface water runoff.....does not transform the water course into a public storm drainage system." BOOKOUT_-_Plaintiff_s_Supp_Brf_i... Caltrans as seen in this photo maintained the Storm Water drainage Channel prior to 2002 as stated in documents the County of San Luis Obispo had withheld from discovery until December 2, 2002. see OCSD unreasonable and hap-hazard maintenance in their sworn testomony

The California Department of Transportation State: "Plaintiff has offered no evidence to show the alleged use by the public entity defendants of the UPRR drainage channel and culvert was adverse to the railroad. Plaintiff has not shown and cannot show the alleged use was continuous and uninterrupted."

Caltrans does not have a right to fill in a Storm Water Drainage Channel by Shoveling and Grading debris into this drainage system as seen in this March 22, 2005 photo of Caltrans!

In Skoumbas v. City of Orinda as noted by the Court January 5, 2009 the Plaintiff Appealed the Courts Decision and Won showing government wrong doing! I have included this case as this shows inverse condemnation, causation and liability issues not addressed by the SLO Court.! Filed 7/31/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ... Judge_Final_Ruling_by_County_Feb... misstates Skoumbas v.City of Orinda 371-375 "The City argues for some type of whole ownership rule, asserting that an entire drainage system must be a public improvement in order to find a government agency liable in inverse condemnation for downstream damage caused by diverted surface water. Such a whole ownership requirement is not found in the standard that applies to cases asserting inverse condemnation as a result of diverted surface water, and is belied by the facts in the leading cases in this area. (See, e.g., Locklin v. City of Lafayette, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 371-375 [discussing liability of the city, Caltrans, BART, the county and flood control district]; id. at p. 378 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).) We will not adopt such a rule.[1]"

Skoumbas v. City of Orinda cited Keys v. Romley at the bottom in which showed. "The Keys court declared that surface water cases should not be decided by an unvarying rule, but rather by the facts of the particular case, as determined by a jury.”
Filed 12/21/01 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ... - other developments[PDF]

February 2, 2009 Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney has made her final ruling on this Case which will now have to be appealed! In her reasons for her decision she states: "Similar to his rulings as to the County and State, Judge Tangeman concluded Plaintiff's evidence was too speculative to support liability against OCSD for its drainage outfall from Well No. 8 or its improvement of real property. As to Union, Judge Tangeman determined the evidence failed to support a basis for liability for improvements made by POVE and found that the improvements were constructed without invoking powers of eminent domain. Judge Tangeman did , however, allude to Union's negligent omission to enlarge the culvert. Union is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings based upon causation issue preclusion. Nevertheless, the statute of limitations applies equally to all Defendants."

County of San Luis Obispo Liability under Locklin v. Lafayette Filed 4/30/98 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ...
Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327 provided courts with guidelines for applying the reasonableness rule. Under Locklin, a landowner is ...

Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her decision February 2, 2009 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 Defendant's 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. See Documents withheld from discovery by County showing Caltrans maintaining this channel until the summor of 2002!County_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_... SeeTrial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman... The situation has been stable and static such that all of Plaintiff's remaining causes of action accrued prior to mid 2002 and therefore are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (CCP ~338)"Judge_Mullaney_Judgement_Februar... see documents withheld from discovery by CountyCounty_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_... SeeTrial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman...

From the Evidence presented to the San Luis Obispo Court of drainage changes since 2000 above and below it is well documented that this flooding is Trespass and Nuisance; that this Trespass and Nuisance can be reasonably abated. This is not a permanent nusiance. The negligent maintenance, haphazard weed abatement; Caltrans raising Hwy 1, grading and shoveling debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel along with the OCSD pipe blocking, dredging and damming debris in this channel can all be reasonably abated! OCSD has proved this in their OCSD video taped meeting January 10, 2005 seen below! see transcript attached OCSD_FLOOD_MEETING_JANUARY_10__2...This is document in Lee v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) 107 Cal. App.4th 848

Caltrans District 5 Pete Riegelhuth NPDES Coordinator responded to the RWQCB Roger W. Briggs January 12, 2009. Stating: "Staff maintains the entrance to the roadside drainage channel by shoveling sediment out of the channel and onto the banks." "When the rain event is over, Caltrans staff returns to remove the shoveled material."_to_Oceano_Complaint_by_... I would like to thank the RWQCB and Roger Briggs for obtaining this response from Caltrans.

The Trial Court erred when Judge Martin J. Tangeman States: "Plaintiff also alleged that OCSD should be liable because its outfall pipe acted as a dam to capture debris in times of flooding, and/or that at times of discharge from its outfall pipe, debris may have been pushed into the culvert." "In each of these cases, the Court finds that the evidence is too speculative to support liability for inverse condemnation. No studies were undertaken or evidence provided showing the effect, if any, of either of these factors during times of flooding." view studies presented to Court Additional_Calculations.pdf see liability Supplemental_Calculations.pdf

Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated: "There Was Insufficient Evidence To Hold Oceano Community Service District Liable For Inverse Condemnation" In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of the drainage outfall from Well #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." See Case cited by Judge Teresa Estrada Mullaney January 5, 2009 Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (2008) 165 Cal. App.4th 783. As well as Lee v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) 107 Cal. App.4th 848. ( Again Judge Martin J. Tangeman cited Skoumas v. City of Orinda, a case that does not exist?) see his ruling attached

Construction is Construction, OCSD took the Railroad property and made physical improvements with their PVC pipe construction and extension of their public facilities on railroad property up until December 2002. This public utility OCSD (water department) exercised eminent domain powers to construct and extend their facilities making drainage obstacles at the railroad drainage inlet and then dredging debris into the railroads storm water drainage inlet pipe daily! The Railroad failed to reinforce the purpose of their Storm Water Drainage Channel thereby causing State Highway 1 and the Community of Oceano to flood. Caltrans owns a portion of this pipe that runs under State Highway 1 as no easements have been presented by Caltrans showing otherwise? Evidence presented to the Court shows Caltrans lowering the capacity of their Right-Away for storm water retention! see p. 8 August 5, 2008 decision

The County of San Luis Obispo needs to be held accountable as per Skoumbas v. City of Orinda (Belair, Locklin, and Bunch). Please read the attached documents with the County knowledge of drainage changes made by them with their letter July 18, 2006 and their letter to their insurance February 6, 2007 talking about trying to make a deal. This apparently is what happens in San Luis Obispo County and need to be made public to the National News Media! New Times, 20/20, NBC? Public Safety should be the County's #1 Concern not making deals to get around their liability for drainage changes made above and below State Highway 1! County_trying_to_make_a_Deal.pdf

Skoumbas Stated: “Belair, Locklin, and Bunch embody policies that recognize that inverse condemnation recovery be equitable, that support the importance of public works projects, and that ensure that the public entity be liable only for the proportionate amount of damage caused by its actions. Our conclusion furthers these policies and also has the further laudable effect of encouraging public entities to engage in flood control efforts while discouraging them from making uncompensated use of private property.” (Odello Brothers v. County of Monterey (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 778, 792.)

In the Courts Notice of entry Judgment February 2, 2009 under Causation the Court States: "The Skoumbas court, citing Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327, 367, declared the relevant question was weather city's unreasonable conduct was a substantial cause of the damage to plaintiffs property. (Skoumbas, supra at 794)"

The Appeal Court for Skoumbas v. City of Orinda reversed the trial Courts decision Stating: "The tort liability of the City as an upper landowner may be decided under the modified civil rule expressed in Keys v. Romley, supra, 64 Cal.2d 396 that also turns on the relative reasonableness of the parties' conduct. This inquiry too, is highly factual and seems unsuited as the basis for summary judgment in this case." Disposition The Judgment is Reversed.

In Skoumbas v. City Of Orinda. "The City argues for some type of whole ownership rule, asserting that an entire drainage system must be a public improvement in order to find a government agency liable in inverse condemnation for downstream damage caused by diverted surface water. Such a whole ownership requirement is not found in the standard that applies to cases asserting inverse condemnation as a result of diverted surface water, and is belied by the facts in the leading cases in this area. (See, e.g., Locklin v. City of Lafayette, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 371-375 [discussing liability of the city, Caltrans, BART, the county and flood control district]; id. at p. 378 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).) We will not adopt such a rule. fn. 14 {Slip Opn. Page 13}" In this case drainage ownership belongs to the County, Caltrans, OCSD, Railroad and then is placed on POVE! OCSD owns the Pipe placed in the Drainage Channel. Caltrans Owns the Dirt and Debris they shovel and Grade into this drainage channel along with eucalyptus branches and debris coming off of their trees in their right-away! The County owns the street above this channel that the County diverts and increases drainage flow to this channel-Recent Developments in Inverse Condemnation Law

Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution (section 19) provides that when a public entity takes or damages property, it must pay the owner just compensation. (See, e.g., Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327, 362 (Locklin).) In Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550 (Belair), we held that when a public entity’s design, construction, or maintenance of a flood control project poses an unreasonable risk of harm to property historically subject to flooding and causes substantial damage to it, the property owners may recover damages for inverse condemnation under section 19. (Belair, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 564-567.) Belair concluded that, if the public entity acted unreasonably, compensation "constitutes no more than a reimbursement to the damaged property owners of their contribution of more than their [proportionate share to the public undertaking]." (Id. at p. 566.) The question here is whether, in the narrow and unique context of flood control litigation, Belair’s rule, as endorsed and refined by Locklin, supra, 7 Cal.4th 327, should apply when the public entity’s efforts to divert water from a potentially dangerous natural course fail and cause property damage during a severe tropical storm. The Court of Appeal concluded the rule should apply.

A continuing nuisance is one that can be discontinued or abated at any time. OCSD can remove their pipe dredging debris into the railroads storm water drainage pipe at any time and proper maintenance by the government users of this drainage channel can take place as noted in the January 10, 2005 OCSD meeting below! The County of San Luis Obispo testified at trial "The problem -- As far as fixing the drainage on the lot, the -- the problem was the impact of the fix on downstream property owners, not that something down there needed to be fixed in order to solve the problem upstream." The County stated. "Yes, we worked with the Department of Transportation on a Caltrans potential project." This statement by the County makes the County liable for any flooding west of State Highway 1 as documents withheld from discovery show flooding problems prior to 2004! County_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_...

To fix the flooding of State Highway 1 the County will have to store their water west of State Highway 1 instead of flooding downstream property owners! Caltrans can no longer grade and shovel debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel off of their Right-Away into railroad property as seen in photos and videos on this below!

The County of San Luis Obispo withheld evidence from discovery which they finally provided December 2, 2008 County_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_... regarding the statements above! The County could have Discontinued and abated this problem at any time! The continuing drainage changes since December 2002 have all revolved around impacts to downstream property owners and information withheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo.Caltrans_1953_Aerial_Photo_Knowl...

Judge Martin J. Tangeman States P. 13 in his August 5, 2008 Decision. "There was no showing of the County's responsibility for designing or maintaining the drainage channel or facilities immediately downstream from plaintiff's property." The County of San Luis Obispo provided this evidence December 2, 2008!

State Highway 1 has been used by Caltrans as a Storm Water Retention Basin with their Tort liability concerns west of State Highway 1! This photo in December 2002 shows Caltrans doing drainage changes to the State Highway 1, 13th and Paso Robles Streets before they removed their retaining wall in 2003. These changes came after Caltrans raised State Highway 1, 6 inch's in December 2000 as they stated they could raise the State Highway on September 15 1987 (see Caltrans Quotes Below) This photo was provided to the court with my property not flooding. State Highway 1 is 1-1-1/2 deep with flood waters! To the left of the sidewalk in front of the Nursery is the County Bike Lane Curb which Caltrans removed in December 2002 or January 2003 and to this day has not replaced after raising 13th Street after this photo was taken! You will see photos below of Caltrans corner Sidewalk Drainage changes affecting public safety with a accident of a 13 year old little girl!

Below is a similar case previously appealed. If the Court had originally cited Skoumbas instead of Skoumas this case would have been found by myself! Filed 12/21/01 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ... File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTMLDec 21, 2001 ... Under the seminal case of Keys v. Romley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 396 (Keys)

Remember this statement by OCSD as you view the evidence below! ("So that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrance to the culvert." ) Notice the pipe plugging debris at the entrance to the culvert in these photos? " OCSD prescriptive easement/Adverse Possession/eminent domain powers 1983 Letter to County, Railroad and POVE! see County of San Luis Obispo response to court July 30, 2008 #7 Conclusion below 1985 ocsd meeting!

Judge Martin J. Tangeman States: "Plaintiff also alleged that OCSD should be liable because its outfall pipe acted as a dam to capture debris in times of flooding, and/or that at times of discharge from its outfall pipe, debris may have been pushed into the culvert." "In each of these cases, the Court finds that the evidence is too speculative to support liability for inverse condemnation. No studies were undertaken or evidence provided showing the effect, if any, of either of these factors during times of flooding." See the evidence below of Testimony by OCSD! Additional_Calculations.pdf View the photos presented to the court at times of flooding!Supplemental_Calculations.pdf

The court reporters transcript page 103 by Mr. Cregger of the Railroad July 10, 2008 States: Question. Mr. Davis, Sticking with you daily log, I'd like to draw your attention to the entry for December 9th, 2004. Answer. Okay. Question. Do you see where it says, "Joe Crawled down under the slab and said that the culvert is about one-third plugged, the last 20 feet or so next to P.O.V.E." Do you See That? Answer UH-HUH Question Is that the--- Refer to the section of pipe which leads from the railroad tracks to the junction box? Answer Yes.

Page 90 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. 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 Testimony above and below of photos and Video evidence was provided to the San Luis Obispo Court! Notice the affects after flooding as an OCSD employee inspects the Railroads Storm Water Drainage inlet pipe with debris acting as a dam behind Mr. Davis at the OCSD pipe? See the Debris OCSD had pitch forked on the bank next to the drainage channel, which had been damming and plugging the Railroads Storm Water Drainage Channel! See the sworn statements above by OCSD involving the last 20 feet of the Railroad pipe plugged!

Page 100-101 OCSD Testimony: 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 Teresa Estrada-Mullaney States. "One of the most difficult aspects of the decision in this case is the fact that during my medical leave (due to a broken arm) Judge Tangeman presided over the inverse condemnation trial. His statement of decision, however, provided well explained reasons for his rulings."

I do not agree with either Judge Tangeman decision nor Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney's Decision. Judge_Estrada_Mullaney_January_5... I believe the court made an error by not allowing the remaining causes of action to go to trial and dismissing our expert's analysis without any opposing evidence! As in Keys v. Romley. "The Keys court declared that surface water cases should not be decided by an unvarying rule, but rather by the facts of the particular case, as determined by a jury.” "Reasonable Care" on Unstable Hillsides - J. David Rogers - ---Flood Damage: Evolving Laws and Policies for an Ever-Present Risk ...

The County of San Luis Obispo had withheld documents from discovery which would of had an impact on the Judge's decisions, however the causes of flooding are not POVE's fault as seen above and below. This drainage problem today begins with Negligent Drainage system Maintenance/ Drainage (improvements ) changes made by County bike lane/curb/gutter and sidewalk requirements since 2000; Caltrans and OCSD drainage changes in December 2002 as seen in this photo of an OCSD employee making drainage improvements in the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel as he was instructed by OCSD to do with the OCSD prescriptive easement 1983.“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 entrance to the culvert.” Exhibit #1768

This OCSD Well # 8 pipe as seen above, that comes from the other side of State Hwy 1 has no purpose in a Storm Water Drainage Channel and is a substantial cause of the flooding we see today! OCSD admits above their Maintenance responsibility and use of this channel as stated by OCSD. " 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 entrance to the culvert.” The evidence presented to the court shows what happens with the rest of this pipe plugging debris at the entrance to the culvert.

Here begins the accrual date of the cause of action. "Inverse Condemnation" The "date of stabilization" The above evidence of drainage improvements by OCSD and Caltrans in December 2002 turns out to be the cause of the debris being dredged and compacted into the Railroads 24 inch storm water inlet pipe! OCSD and Caltrans thought that they were making improvements with both of their construction in December 2002. It is unfortunate that at this time this pipe was not removed entirely from this drainage channel! The Railroad had to later remove one of the concrete bags that caltrans had installed as seen in this photo!Motion_for_Reconsideration.pdf County oppositionDefendant_County_of_SLO_Oppositi... Supplemental-Defendant_County_of_SLO_Oppositi...

Judge Martin J. Tangeman States: P 10 in his August 5, 2008 decision. Plaintiff Has Failed To Prove That Defendants Have Acquired A Prescriptive Easement Over Private Property. Written Exhibits #1758 #1756 to POVE #1729 from OCSD to the railroad, response back #1730 from the railroad provided to the Court show On April 21, 1983 OCSD claimed a (prescriptive easement) useing the storm water drainage channel running into a retention basin. OCSD Stated. “Because this is an established drainage channel, the district feels that its full design capacity should be available for use.” The Railroad responded back April 29, 1983. “ It would appear that the channel mentioned in your letter was probably created to handle storm water runoff, and not the purpose to which you now intend to utilize it.”BOOKOUT_-_Plaintiff_s_Supp_Brf_i...

Oceano Community Service District Minutes Exhibit # 1758 September 11, 1985 presented to the Court State: "2) To take the discharge line which runs underneath Highway 1 and use it to discharge water near the railroad station. GM Hill stated that this would require obtaining easements from the Depot Association and Southern Pacific."

Oceano Community Service District stated to the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo on July 30, 2008 "NO PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT EXIST" The letter written to the County, Railroad and POVE in April 21, 1983 begins their prescriptive easement, especially with their installing their PVC pipe in the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel after 1988 as Caltrans photos show below presented to the Court! Adam Daner the Attorney for OCSD States in his conclusion to the San Luis Obispo Court regarding OCSD not having a Prescriptive Easement. "Plaintiff's case is barred by the applicable three year statute of limitations. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence whatsoever that any of the defendents entities have a prescriptive easement rights over the relevant property."BOOKOUT_-_OCSD_support_judgment....

This photo shows the OCSD pipe that the Court had stated was in the vicinity and not in the drainage channel. This 2006 photo after OCSD had done weed abatement in 2005 shows OCSD liability for plugging at the culvert from the OCSD pipe being in the drainage channel! Notice the pipe above their pipe that OCSD left after their weed abatement blocking debris!

The Oceano Community Service District Letter to Southern Pacific Railroad April 21, 1983 stated in Quotes "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."

The Oceano Community Service District Submitted to the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County on July 30, 2008 Exhibit # 1729. as quoted above. This exhibit written to the Southern Pacific Land Company by General Manager of OCSD Richard C. Hill does not mention the OCSD pipe installed into the Drainage channel after 1988 from Caltrans maintanence photos below!

This Drainage Channel was never designed for this OCSD pipe plugging debris! The Retention Pond on Railroad property was not designed for 4500 gallons of water being dredged into it daily by OCSD! OCSD ignored the advice of the Railroad and took a prescriptive easement useing the drainage channel and the Railroad retention pond for their own use other then storm water runoff and retention! It was shown above from quotes by OCSD that they have maintained this pipe and channel on many occassions. Their weed abatement is maintenance as they had removed debris and sedimentation numerous times since installing their PVC pipe in the community's storm water drainage channel.

The Oceano Community Service District Stated to the Court July 30, 2008 "The Locklin Court clearly stated that a public entity must exert control over and assume responsibility for maintenance of a natural watercourse if it is to be liable for damage caused by stream flow. Locklin v. City of Lafayette (1994)" See photos and Statements above.

The County Of San Luis Obispo State July 28, 2008 to the Superior Court Of The State Of California County Of San Luis Obispo. "Conclusion" "Plaintiff has attempted to mold his evidence and cobble together a cause of action from bits and pieces of various claims and theories of recovery. He cannot, however, realistically and properly avoid the inevitable conclusions that his claim is one for damage to property pusuant to Cal. Const. Atr. 1~19, governd by the limitations period set forth in CCP 338(J); that his causes of action accured, at the latest, June 2002; and that none of the defendents have obtained prescriptive rights to any property of any of the defendents. Accordingly, these arguments should be deemed insufficient to defeat defendent's motion for judgement." July 28, 2008 Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP By: Molly Thurmond Attorney for Defendent, County Of San Luis Obispo. See County Documents withheld from discovery of Caltrans maintaining the drainage channel until the summer of 2002 County_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_...

The California Department of Transportation State: Regarding Prescriptive Easement July 28, 2008. "A land owner has the right to pass upstream waters off of his property so long as his conduct is not unreasonable. See Locklin v City of Lafayette (1994)" "Utilizing an existing natural watercourse for drainage of surface water runoff.....does not transform the water course into a public storm drainage system."BOOKOUT_-_Plaintiff_s_Supp_Brf_i...

"Plaintiff has offered no evidence to show the alleged use by the public enity defendents of the UPRR drainage channel and culvert was adverse to the railroad. Plaintiff has not shown and cannot show the allegeged use was continuous and uninterrupted."Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf

In February 1994 this case mentiond by Caltrans above came before the California Supreme Court (7Cal 4th 327, 1994), who partially overturned the decision, there by rescinding the natural watercourse rule. The Supreme Court eliminated the immunity afforded by the Natural Watercourse Rule and instead held that anyone or any agency can be held liable if they act unreasonably in the collection, conveyance and discharge of surface waters. The Locklin decision means that public agencies, in particular, will no longer be granted summary judgements in flood cases involving natural channels, as had been the case for the previous 85 years. see documents withheld from discovery showing Caltrans Maintaining the drainage channel until the summer of 2002 County_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_...

Caltrans as seen in this video November 26, 2008 with the Courts Decision January 5, 2009 will be allowed to continue shoveling debris off of State Highway 1 into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel used by Caltrans, County Of San Luis Obispo and the Oceano Community Service District.
video

These are quotes from Exhibits presented to the court exhibit # 1785 May 14, 1987 This is after the County had required drainage improvement changes in 1985 on Railroad property for the retention pond used by the County, Caltrans and OCSD after issueing building permits to POVE!

“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.”

The County of San Luis Obispo and Cal Trans have taken State Highway 1, thirteenth and Paso Robles streets for their use as a de facto retention basin as documents obtained December 2, 2008 show with the statements above! Caltrans Grading and shoveling debris into this system stands along, however their concerns of a fix as stated in documents show this to be true. if this is not imediatly fixed they will be responsible for any injuries or accidents during flooding times!County_Documents_withheld_from_d... seeCounty_Discovery_Abuse_Baughman_...

The next two photos are Caltarns shoveling debris into the Railroads storm water drainage channel and the Railroad removing a drainage improvement by Caltrans in December 2002 when the Oceano Community Service District cut Five feet off of their PVC pipe they had placed into the Railroads Storm Water inlet pipe. Notice the debris shoveld onto the bank!

Union Pacific Railroad in their June 27, 2008 Introduction to the Court state our experts concerns: 1)Blockage of the Natural Drainage way and insufficient sized drainage pipe. 2) OCSD's operation of a drainage pipe leading into the drainage way which adds silt and debris; (3)compromise of the drainage of the drainage system by poorly designed wxtensions at the POVE facilit;(4)increased construction in the watershed;(5)decrease in the available storage for water at the inlet of the drainage pipe (6)lack of maintence of the drainage system.

None of the Defendents called any experts to disput any of these issues!

As many of you are aware since 2004 my business, (Oceano Nursery) and the Community has been having severe flooding problems on State Highway 1 that have been caused by several governmental agencies drainage changes since December 2000 with Caltrans raising State Highway 1. Then in December 2002 when this OCSD prescriptive easement pipe above was cut off five feet and not removed from the drainage channel which Caltrans then placed concrete bags in front of the OCSD Well # 8 pipe causing another easment by caltrans to this drainage channel!

I have had to close my business and take legal action against these agencies to correct their Drainage changes and maintenance practices to this drainage channel with their storing of contaminated storm water runoff on State Highway 1 My Property, the Community and allowing debris and sediment to accumulate in the Community’s Storm Water Drainage Channel. These maintanence practices are not normal! It is time to look at our public safety!

This still photo of an elderly lady having to drive through Storm Water on State Highway 1 in 2-2-1/2 feet of water is not acceptable of our local governments maintenance below!

My business (Oceano Nursery), Oceano Market, State Highway 1 and the Oceano Community has just flooded again on December 14th and 15th 2008 showing a greater need to bring this to the public's attention! Caltrans again has been Caught on security Cameras November 26, 2008 shoveling debris into the Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel, as seen above on security videos. I am now closed again and hope to one day re-open.

With my upcoming Appeal we will find out if Caltrans continued raising, grading and shoveling of debris into a Community's Storm water drainage channel is legal and if this will become case law affecting all Communities in California? At this time I believe the only way to ever see this problem fixed is to appeal the Courts decisions Stating that POVE was at fault; not local government! " Their faulty construction work was the "substantial cause" not any negligent drainage system maintenance by any of these defendents."
Caltrans has changed their Maintenance to State Highway 1 as you will see below! View their written quote September 15, 1987? “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.” If Caltrans does have a legal right to raise a State Highway and a drainage channel then they have legally taken my property and Oceano Markets property too? This should be ansered in my appeal?

Judge Martin J. Tangeman Stated in his decision August 5, 2008 "The Date of stabilization" approach does not apply in this case. The evidence showed that the last improvements made to the drainage systems were constructed by Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange ("POVE") in the late 1970s. Fruther, the evidence demonstrated that the flooding problem was relatively consistent and static for several years prior to the date Plaintiff purchased his property." See Caltrans DocumentsCal_Trans_Documents.pdf

We provided statements by Caltrans and evidence of Caltrans maintaining this drainage channel in the eighties to 2002. one of the County documents withheld from discovery show this drainage channel maintained by Caltrans til 2002? Any drainage maintanence would be considerd an improvement! Their has been no drainage maintenance since December 2002 by Caltrans when they installed concrete bags in this system showing another prescriptive easment of drainage maintenance! see Court Exhibits Quotes below 1785, 1795, 1786, 1788, 1789, 1796

As Stated by Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney above "Judge Tangeman decided that POVE was primarily responsible for the damage to plaintiff's property. Their faulty construction work was the "substantial cause" not any negligent drainage system maintenance by any of these defendents." Caltrans improved and raised State Highway 1 in 2000-2008 this faulty constrution work and knowledge of drainage problems by Caltrans has not stabilized since December 2000! Caltrans removed a County bike lane curb on Paso Robles Street without replacing this berm is negligent drainage system maintenance!

In our Appeal these will be some of the issues addressed above and below!

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).)

Another aspect of the analysis of whether a nuisance is permanent or continuing is whether a nuisance is stabilized and whether it can reasonably be abated. On the issue of stabilization, the courts have declared a rule that a cause of action does not begin to accrue until the nuisance and consequent damages are stabilized. (Lee v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 848, 857-858, citing Pierpoint, supra, 70 Cal.2d at pp. 291-294 and Stonewall Ins. Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1810, 1843.)

1) In this case this nuisance could be reasonalby abated if Caltrans would not grade and shovel debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel. If they would lower State Highway 1 to it's origional height of 2000. If they remove the rest of the fill dirt from behind the retaining wall they had removed in 2003 on their right-away. if they would remove the three trees on their right-away contributing to the debris OCSD dredges into the Railroads storm water drainage inlet pipe.

2) Oceano Community Service District would relinquish their prescriptive easement into the Railroads Storm Water Drainage Channel and remove their Well # 8 pipe dredgeing 4500 gallons of water and debris daily into the Railroads storm water drainage channel and then into the County, Caltrans and OCSD retention pond that OCSD claimed use of in 1983 according to letters witten by OCSD to the County, Railroad and POVE! Then OCSD be required to install underground retention on their propertys instead of allowing water runoff into this drainage system since construction in 2001.

3) County of San Luis Obispo change their 1985 requirement of POVE to Raise the Community Storm Water Retention Pond on Railroad property and then invest $43,295.00 to correct County drainage as Caltrans had presented to the Glenn Priddy County of San Luis Obispo September 25, 1987. Recieved September 28, 1987 by the County of San Luis Obispo Engineering Department! that the County discontinue additional curb gutter and sidewalks requirments until drainage is corrected.

Documents provided to the Court show, that the drainage was not "Static" and that the County of San Luis Obispo required the Railroad/POVE property pond in March 1985 to raise their outlet of the Retention Pond on Railroad property that the County, Caltrans and OCSD where useing at the time prior to signing off their building permit 5/22/85? Photos and letters show Caltrans at this time maintained the Railroads drainage channel and OCSD from a April 21, 1983 letter to the County Of San Luis Obispo/POVE/Railroad had claimed a right (prescriptive Easement) to use the retention Pond on Railroad property stating "Because this is an established drainage channel. The District feels that its full design capacity should be available for use." Notice the OCSD PVC Pipe Below! The Railroad responded back, April 29, 1983. “ It would appear that the channel mentioned in your letter was probably created to handle storm water runoff, and not the purpose to which you now intend to utilize it.”

Caltrans in 2003 removed their retaining wall on their four foot right-away on State Highway 1.
This December 2000 Photo shows this wall with Caltrans raising their State Highway six inch's as they had stated September 15, 1987 they could raise the highway 1 foot and leave both the County and the Oceano Community Service District the problem to solve on their own




Notice Caltrans workers shoveling debris into Storm Water Drainage inlet January 4, 2007? see Security videos below! POVE Does not pay these State Employees to shovel this debris into this system. The Tax payers of California Do!


The County of San Luis Obispo Attorney's had chosen to withhold evidence from our first trial (Oceano Residents 2002 questionnaire Statements) from discovery. They objected any time this drainage downstream was brought up. They stated to the San luis obispo Court August 22, 2008 after our first tiral. P.3"Plaintiff, his counsel, and his expert had the same opportunity as defendents to review the summarized responses to determine weather they had any bearing on the allegations in plaintiff's complaint. if the information related to any address on the summary was relevant to the flooding of plaintiff's property," P 6 "Declarations of Thomas Cregger, Adam Daner, and Molly Thurmond attached herto and incorporated herin)"

August 22, 2008 P 7 "The County timely produced each and every document of which it was, or resonably should have been, aware." "Fruther, after discovery, there was no delay in making this evidence known to plaintiff, and in providing plaintiff with all the original responses, as he requested." P 8 "In any event, there is nothing to suggest that any information in any of the additional responses has any bearing on the flooding to Mr. Bookouts's property."

The County of San Luis Obispo on December 2, 2008 finally gave this rest of the evidence to us. The County withholding of this evidence of drainage changes west of State Highway 1 on County owned Airport property affected the Court from knowledge of where the Community's Storm water was historically stored. (see photos below) In 1996 1997/2001/2002 Fountain Avenue, Airpark Dr, Security Court and the west side of Oceano was flooding yearly from the documents the County withheld from discovery including the Baughman property inwhich the County had previously been sued for flooding!The Baughman statement alone with the documents withheld by the County affected the Courts decision! The County of San luis Obispo liability goes from above State Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean.

Property owner Larry Baughman 1845 Casitas County Summery Statement #158 "(Channel Between Between Railroad Street and Fountain Avenue Overgrown)

This is the true statement as discoverd December 2, 2008 summerized by the County Of San Luis Obispo Above! Larry Baughman owner of 1519 Fountain Ave and Ex- OCSD Director State: "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"Cal_Trans_Documents.pdf

The residents of Oceano should not be held responsible for our local governments storm water drainage changes to the Pacific Ocean! The following statements by the County of San Luis Obispo at Court July 10, 2008 show State Highway 1 drainage being connected to problems west of State Highway 1 as you will also hear the County in the next video

The County testimony at Court July 10, 2008: Question "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 and have you raised issues with respect to proposed solutions due to downstream potential 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: Again this is outside the watershed, not affecting Bill Bookout's property." See Exhibits Quotes Below 1785,1795, 1786,1788, 1789, 1796!

County written documents provided December 2, 2008 show 13th, Paso Robles Streets and State highway 1 not being a flooding problem or concern instead the west side of Oceano and Cienaga involving a County Supervisor!


Notice, the dam and then notice five feet cut off of this pipe with the pipe still in this channel with OCSD December 2002 Improvement? "Date Of Stabilization"?

Notice, Cal Trans Drainage (Improvement) December 2002 with the Concrete bags Cal Trans had installed after OCSD cut Five feet off of their pvc pipe! The concrete bags were installed by a Cal Trans Maintenance Supervisor who you saw in the January 4, 2007 video above shoveling debris into this storm water drainage channel, followed by photos of his employee's shoveling debris farther into this drainage channel. Notice in the second photo the debris on top of these concrete bags before OCSD turns on their well #8.

Notice, OCSD dam at Railroad 24 inch pipe inlet with concrete bags installed by Cal Trans December 2002 at front of dam in Oceano Community's storm water drainage channel Improvement? "Date of Stabilization"


On August 5, 2008 with the County of San Luis Obispo Attorneys being allowed to withhold evidence/witness from Discovery and use one document of over 400 withheld from discovery during for our first trial for Inverse Condemnation. The Court ruled against the first phase of trial (inverse condemenation) The Court stated regarding the OCSD 6 inch PVC pipe pictured and talked about above and seen operating in the next photo and video below.

"There Was Insufficent Evidence To Hold Oceano Community Service District Liable For Inverse Condemnation" In the case of OCSD, the evidence largely consisted of the construction of the drainage outfall from Well #8 in the vicinity of the curlvert. 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."

I ask first is this pipe Legal in a Storm Water Drainage Channel? The next question is what is concidered a Vicinity of the Curlvert? What would an engineer say? Who was the engineer who designed this system? OCSD has stated that they use this well 5-6 days a week pumping 4500 gallons of water each time into this retention basin! This is over a one million four hundred thousand gallons of water a year pumped into the Oceano Community's Storm water Drainage system directly into a retention pond OCSD claimed use of in 1983 on Railroad property! Prescriptive easement began with letter to Railroad 1983.

From the Court reporter transcript Thursday July 10, 2008 The San Luis Obispo Court heard the following testimony placing the OCSD pipe directly in the Railroads Storm Water Drainage Channel and not in the Vicinity as the Court had stated in their August 5, 2008 decision!

P. 83 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 –

P.86 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 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 did you oversee an extension of the pipe into the culvert that’s depicted there?

Answer. yes.

P. 102 By Mr. Gregger of Mr. Davis OCSD. Mr . Gregger states “And lets take a look at your daily log here, Exhibit 1768. And I’d like to direct your attention to the entry for Friday, December 2nd, 2002”

Question of OCSD P.103 by Mr. Gregger from the Rail Road “”Well, looking at your Friday , December 20th, 2002, Daily log, it says,” “I had dan saw off the six-inch pipe and end it five feet in front of the culvert.”

Answer. “Okay”

Question. “is that dan in the picture?”

Answer. “yes i believe so.”

Question. “Okay.” “why did—why was the pipe cut off?”

Answer. “it is in – i think mr. bookout thought that possibly the pipe going inside the culvert was restricting the flow.”

OCSD took possession of the Railroads Drainage channel and property shortly after their September 11, 1985 OCSD meeting as stated: “2) To take the discharge line which runs underneath Highway 1 and use it to discharge water near the railroad station. GM Hill stated that this would require obtaining easements from the Depot Association and Southern Pacific." As provided to the Court from OCSD daily logs Court exhibit #1729, 1730, 1756 Letter to County, RR, POVE #1758 #1768

Evidence provided to the San Luis Obispo Court regarding OCSD outfall pipe from their daily logs provided to the Court improved the Railroads Drainage Channel in December 20, 2002 when they cut five feet off of their previous drainage improvement installing well pipe in inlet! This Improvement as stated by OCSD “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 entrance to the culvert.” Exhibit #1768

This evidence presented to the Court regarding the last drainage improvement until December 2002-1984/85 shows a differn't "Date of Stabilization" then the Courts ruling on in the Date of Stabilization being in the late 1970'S?

Notice the differnce in the statement above and how Mr. Cregger from the RR asked this question below? Remember "Date Of Stabilization"

Question of OCSD P.103 by Mr. Gregger from the Rail Road “”Well, looking at your Friday , December 20th, 2002, Daily log, it says,” “I had dan saw off the six-inch pipe and end it five feet in front of the culvert.”

He forgot to say: "So that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrance to the culvert." see San Luis Obispo Court Statement below!


The San Luis Obispo Court States: "Plaintiff also alleged that OCSD should be liable becouse its outfall pipe acted as a dam to capture debris in times of flooding, and/or that at times of discharge from its outfall pipe, debris may have been pushed into the culvert." "In each of these cases, the Court finds that the evidence is too speculative to support liability for inverse condemnation. No studies were undertaken or evidence provided showing the effect, if any, of either of these factors during times of flooding."

Page 90 July 10, 2008 Testimony by OCSD see photo at top. Question. Okay. Now, this is a picture, 1396, of you inspecting the entrence 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 whats 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. 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.

Page 100-101 OCSD Testimony: Question. March 23rd , 2005, it's adiscussion of Joe and Max removing Eucalyptus Bark from in front of the culvert? Answer. Yes. Question. That would be the date of the photo thats 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.

This photo was immediatly after a storm! Showing why OCSD would want to improve their Drainage system as aquired by the Railroad? Do you think you could see 100 feet inside of this pipe?

Court Reporters Transcript PAGE 103 by the Railroad July 10, 2008 Question. Mr. Davis, Stricking with you daily log, I'd like to draw your attention to the entry for December 9th, 2004. Answer. Okay. Question. Do you see where it says, "Joe Crawled down under the slab and said that the culvert is about one-third plugged, the last 20 feet or so next to P.O.V.E." Do you See That? that Answer UH-HUH QuestionIs that the--- Refer to the section of pipe which leads from the railroad tracks to the junction box? Answer Yes.

Caltrans and the County Of San luis Obispo February 2, 2007 helping a flooded moterist!
video

The following videos shows Caltrans pumping out Caltrans, OCSD and the County's Storm Water Retention pond used on the west side of State Highway 1 that Cal Trans, the County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD all use for storing their Storm Water coming off of State Highway 1. The RWQCB Stated on July 11, 1997 in a Staff report that: "The retention pond is used primarily for storm runoff from nearby streets." Notice the oil Contamination that is being pumped towards the Oceano Lagoon and Pacific Ocean?

Does the Regional Water Quality Control Board Really allow and approve of this use of Cal Trans, County of San Luis Obispo and OCSD?

video
Cal Trans,County and OCSD Storm Water being pumped to lagoon and Pacific Ocean.

video

Cal Trans, County and OCSD Storm Water being pumped to lagoon and Pacific Ocean.

video

Cal Trans has Intentionally Flooded State Highway 1, local Residents, businesses, motorist traveling, State Highway in Oceano since 2004 from removing a retaining wall on Cal Trans property in 2003, then plowing and shoveling the debris behind this wall into the Oceano Community’s Storm Water Drainage Channel as seen in the photos above and Security videos below! Cal Trans had agreed to fix a previous storm water drainage problem in 1985 that would have only cost $43,295.00 to fix. In a Cal Trans Drainage Project Agreement, September 25, 1987, Cal Trans had taken responsibility for this drainage system and $5,000.00 from Oceano residents, signed an agreement with The Oceano Community Service District to fix Cal Trans drainage system and dispose of Oceano Community Service District storm water!

The Residents of Oceano are not financially responsible for Cal Trans chooseing to ignore State Highway 1 Drainage problems, Safety and should not have to pay any assesments for Cal Trans actions below! They have already paid $5,000.00 to Caltrans for their previous share in this fix.

November 26, 2008 Caltrans continues to in-danger the Oceano Residents and the public by shoveling debris off of State Highway 1 into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel as seen in the first video and photos below taken the follwing day!

The San Luis Obispo Court on August 5, 2008 regarding Cal Trans States: "There Was Insufficent Evidence To Hold The State of California Liable For Inverse Condemnation" The Court then States. "Nor was there substantial evidence that debris accumulated within the State's right-of-way (as opposed to the debris accumulated on private property outside the boundaries of the right-of -way) contributed in any meaningful way to the problems in the operation of the drainage facilities on Railroad and POVE properties." SeeTrial Exhibits seen by Judge Tangeman...


OCSD 2005 Weed Abatement with dam left by OCSD after the January 10, 2005 OCSD meeting with OCSD president Jim Hill previously talking about this pipe possibly being illegal and that: that issue is being addressed? After flooding in early 2006 with 18 inch's of debris and water in my property there was no other choice then to take legal action for OCSD changes made to the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage system since December 2002.

OCSD 2005 Weed Abatement, notice Caltrans Concrete bags and new pipe uncoverd by OCSD?

First Storm January 2006, Notice OCSD Dam and New pipe Uncoverd by OCSD?

The County of San Luis Obispo and the Regional Water Quality Control Board on 3/25/85 required POVE to raise the outlet for this storm water at a retention pond on railroad property that the County, Cal Trans, and OCSD all use; raised in 1985. Unfortunately, the County has withheld evidence from discovery in Bookout v. State of California showing the County’s involvement both above and below this drainage system with theirs and Cal Trans’ Tort liability concerns of property owners downhill from this storm water retention basin. This explains County building permits issued in the 1984/85 and their requirements for raising of this storm water retention pond.

In the evidence withheld from discovery, trial by the County of San Luis Obispo Attorneys and not provided until after trial December 2, 2008 are Questionnaire Statements by residents and property owners 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 State: "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" His statenent in the County summery "Channel between Railroad Street And Fountain Avenue overgrown."

Chuck Bachman 1519 and 1525 Fountain Ave. "6' Up To Apprrox 18' Every Season In Home And Surrounding."

Oceano Community Service District on December 20, 2002 changed the inlet to this drainage system below with their 6 inch PVC pipe cut off and dredging sedimentation and debris into the Railroads, Cal Trans, County’s, OCSD Drainage system which is a main contributor to the flooding we see today. Along with Cal Trans present maintenance activities and County building permits uphill! The Photos below show OCSD has no concern for their PVC pipe they had placed in the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel. OCSD has submitted a Storm Water Management Plan to the Regional Water Quality Control Board that can be viewed on line in which OCSD shows on page 7 that they have a "Well Water Overflow Basin A" which is misleading. The photo below is where OCSD Stores their well water on the west side of State Highway 1! OCSD claimed use of this Retention pond in 1983 in their letter to POVE, County and Railroad! (prescriptive easement)

The Debris the Railroad removed in 2007 is still on the edges of the drainage channel today along with the concrete bag as seen in the photo below.


Please help and see that State Highway 1 is made safe again for our residents and travelers by asking questions of our local government! To fix this drainage problem, Cal Trans, County of San Luis Obispo, Oceano Community Service District and the Railroad will need to work together, taking responsibility for their prior drainage changes.

Below are some Ideas to fix this dangerous situation before we have rain!

1) Removing the debris and sedimentation Cal Trans has been grading and shoveling into the Oceano Community’s Storm Water Drainage Channel!

2) Enlarge Cal Trans 4 foot right-away at Cal Trans, drainage entrance to this Oceano Community drainage channel!

3) Remove three of the eucalyptus trees on Cal Trans 4 foot right-away raising Highway 1 and contributing to the debris Cal Trans has been grading into this drainage channel.

4) Require the Oceano Community Service District to remove the 6 inch PVC pipe they have placed in the Oceano community’s storm water drainage channel dredging debris into the Railroads 24 inch inlet pipe since December 20, 2002.

5) The Railroad will need to maintain their drainage inlet pipe removing blockages dredged and shoveld into their drainage system by Cal Trans and the Oceano Community Service District. Plus stopping the debris from County Streets being allowed to wash into this drainage system.

6) The County of San Luis Obispo and the Regional Water Quality control Board will need to lower and enlarge the storm water retention pond, that they required the outlet raised in 1985. The County then needs to use their property for storm water runoff!

Once this is done yearly maintenance will keep State Highway 1 from Flooding and Safe for our residents, motorist and pedestrians

The County Of San Luis Obispo Attorney's Pictured below have been able to withhold over 400 + Documents and over 53 witnesses from Discovery showing my property not flooding prior to 2004. They were allowed to use one of these un-disclosed documents in our first round of trial without disclosing the other documents that went with this one piece of evidence before trial or after until December 2, 2008. This act by the County of San Luis Obispo Attorneys affects the whole Community of Oceano as the County attorney stated to the County's insurance company on February 6, 2007. "As to the fix the defendants did agree it does not make sense to resolve the plaintiff's damage claim unless the problem has bee rectified.' 'Clay Hall County Attorney'! County_Documents_withheld_from_d...

The County of San Luis Obispo when they first disclosed some of these documents on July 30, 2008; chose to redact all of the names of these witness and withheld additional information (Photos) showing Cal Trans, County, OCSD Liability. When requested again for un redacted copies after trial the County again refused on October 16, 2008. The County's withholding of evidence shows their knowledge, maintenance and Liability goes all the way to the Pacific Ocean; their changes and requirements they have made down hill and uphill of my property; with their permitting actions since 2003 and before. The County Attorney in San luis Obispo Court have stated that these Documents were not in their possession? This was not true as we have found out later!

This photo below is the County continuing to make improper drainage changes. Directed towards State Highway 1, 13th and Paso Robles Streets.

The County and the other defendants claim bill's for mediations that never took place, expert fees for experts that had information witheld from them and other fees totaling over $221,000.00 for their withholding of evidence. This is not acceptable.

On December 2, 2008 five months after our first trial for inverse condinination the County of San Luis Obispo disclosed color photos and over 450 documents County_Documents_withheld_from_d... that had not been disclosed by the County of San Luis Obispo prior to our trial. The first photo shows the December 2000 overlay of State Highway 1 by Cal Trans and the ponding on the east side of the State Highway. Cal trans talked about the problem they had created in the January 10, 2005 OCSD above. The next photo is an ally way as seen above in another flooding lawsuit inwhich the County was involved. This ally has now been paved with the water headed directly towards State Highway 1.

I invite the public to view the following Quotes, Photos and videos below. I invite the News Media to view the Communities storm water drainage channel today with County, Cal Trans, OCSD knowledge of Liability! Our new Jury Trial Date is set for February 9, 2008!

If the County had their way they would have the residents of Oceano Pay for their altering the Oceano Community's Historic Drainage path as seen in the first video above. This is not acceptable and I ask for the Community's Help! Please view the following videos, photos and security cameras along with other documented evidence. The Flooding of Highway 1 needs to end before other accidents occur and the and subsequent litigation comes from our local governments knowledge of their changes to the Oceano drainage system.

The County of San Luis Obispo Attorney Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP (Clayton U. Hall) wrote Ms. Mauri McGuire--Carl Warren & Company February 6, 2007
“However, I do believe that there was significant movement both in terms of the “fix” of the problem as well as a resolution of the plaintiff’s damage claim. As to the “fix’ the defendants did agree that it does not make sense to resolve the plaintiff’s damage claim unless the problem has bee rectified. Otherwise, subsequent flooding will cause subsequent litigation.” See County letters below attached.

The County Attorney Clayton U. Hall then goes on to state that "As noted above, the County did not contribute to any settlement offer. This is due to the fact that plaintiff's counsel and I have reached an accord that he will ultimately dismiss the County from all damages causes of action and the inverse condemnation cause of action. At this point in time he does anticipate keeping the County in the injunctive relief cause of action, as we are obviously an unnecessary party to the overall "fix" Specifically, the County needs to be involved in the "fix" as it relates to improvements at Railroad Avenue and to the east." "cc: Rita L. Neal, Esq. (CV 060384)--Debra A. Hossli, Risk Manager--M. Scott Radovich, ESQ.

The County's letter to their Insurance above should be looked into as the County's statements in the first video above show their contributing in the last few years to the cause of the flooding since 2004! Their actions prior are seen through out this Blog.

CAL TRANS, OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO KNOWLEDGE OF OCEANO DRAINAGE AND CALTRANS ACTIONS

Cal Trans and the County knew of the dangers to State Highway 1 from the County of San Luis Obispo issuing Building Permits over the Communities, Caltrans and County's Storm Water drainage outlet, with the County and Cal Trans using the same drainage path to their retention basin pond, rather then implement a solution on site or downstream; Cal Trans entered into an agreement as far back as March 13, 1985 with the Oceano Community Service District, taking $5,000.00 of OCSD District (Community Residents) money for Cal Trans to correct drainage problems as seen below in Cal Trans photos rather than require the Oceano Community Service District to build a storm water retention area on site for a County Permitted Fire Station and OCSD Buildings. OCSD in 1983 obtained a prescriptive Easement right over Railroad property when they claimed use of this drainage channel, junction box and retention pond. They then began dredging debris into this Storm Water Drainage Channel!

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.”

These photos below are Cal Trans Drainage photos regarding their highway drainage concerns in the 1980's

Notice Cal Trans concerns in the late eighties with there photo showing Highway 1 draining in the Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel. The water actually drains into the channel as seen in this photo. Cal Trans Maintained this drainage channel at this time. Notice, how the water sets flat on Highway 1 with a little ponding in front of Oceano Market. The Car next to Oceano Market is slanted from the sidewalk into the street. Notice the power lines that have since been removed? The retaining wall on Cal Trans Right-Away is seen in this photo along with highway 1 being lower at this time as seen in front of Oceano Market. Notice ponding on the east side of Highway 1, not flooding as we see today!


Cal Trans and the County had prior made drainage course changes from Highway 1 to the Pacific Ocean in the late 60’s and early seventies; that can be seen in a Cal Trans Historic photo Slo-16-10 Dated August 5, 1953.

This photo down hill of State Highway 1 is representative of the County of San Luis Obispo 2002 Questionnaires that the County withheld from discovery and then produced only 1 document out of over 400 Documents dozens of whitiness's. This involves Cal Trans concerns for not correcting a known drainage problem on State Highway 1 as quoted below! Cal Trans had concerns of flooding the Baughman property and others in the lowlands of Oceano which happens to be half of the west side of Oceano. This photo involves changes made by the County Of San Luis Obispo on the County owned Airport property! The Questionnaires witheld from discovery have several of these residents statements, including an ex OCSD Director from the eighties. 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

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."

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."

Cal Trans Downstream Concerns of flooding the Baughman property as well as others! 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"

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."

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!

This is Highway 1 Before Cal Trans started raising State Highway1 in December 2000 instead of correcting their known drainage problems. Notice the trees at the entrance to the Oceano Community Storm Water Drainage Channel are on Cal Trans Right-Away including the light pole that had been installed since the late Eighties. This light pole is a danger in it's present location on Cal Trans Right-Away.
This photo was taken in 2008 after a van crashed into the light pole after hitting the sag of water that was once the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage inlet before Cal Trans and the County Of San Luis Obispo relocated this inlet to it's present location. THE FLOODING OF STATE HIGHWAY 1 CAN BE ELIMINATED.
Cal Trans in late 2000 was maintaining the Oceano Community Storm Water Drainage Channel. As seen in this photo below with a Cal Trans loader outside of Cal Trans Right-Away. The second Photo shows Cal Trans removing the debris which Cal Trans no longer does. The Flooding of Highway 1 can be resolved if Cal Trans again takes responsibility for the drainage channel and Highway 1 debris removal. OCSD needs to yearly clean out the sedimentation that they dredge into the Railroads drainage pipe. OCSD needs to further remove their 6 inch PVC pipe from the Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel. The County of San Luis Obispo would need to lower the retention pond that the County, Cal Trans and OCSD all use. The County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board required POVE to raise this Pond in 1985.



The photos below shows, Cal Trans, overlaying and Raising Highway 1 in November and December 2000 with multiple layers of asphalt at the Oceano Community’s Storm Water Drainage inlet. Cal Trans had stated in their 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.” Cal Trans has done this since late 2000! However this has caused many health safty problems.
The Retaining wall seen in this photo above was removed by Cal Trans in 2003, as it was in Cal Trans 4 foot right a way and was a danger to the public from many accidents. The dirt seen behind this wall was not hauled away, being allowed to enter the State Highway 1 as seen below.
This Photo shows the effects of Cal Trans allowing the debris from behind their retaining wall removed in 2003 to enter into State Highway 1 and then wash and be plowed by Cal Trans into the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel instead of being removed by Cal Trans as seen in the 2000 photo prior.


This Photo of Cal Trans raising Highway 1 in 2000 shows the old sidewalk in front of Oceano Nursery before Cal Trans raised and replaced this sidewalk in 2003. Notice the State Highway patrol car on the old sidewalk with the previous asphalt a little higher then the sidewalk curb.

This Photo shows the effects of Cal Trans overlaying of Highway 1 and their raising the height of Highway 1 in front of the Oceano Community's old Fire Station.


This Photo was provided by Cal Trans and shows layers of asphalt with the Cal Trans retaining wall in the back ground and the light pole in Cal Trans Right-Away along with the tree in Cal Trans Right-Away. Cal Trans has raised the Highway since and changed the Community's Drainage inlet. This action raises the Oceano Community's drainage channel removing water retention from the railroad inlet pipe to State Highway 1!

This photo shows the old sidewalk with no flooding of the business, however notice the ponding in front of the business and the sidewalk being lower then the electrical box in the sidewalk that had been installed in the late eighties for under ground utilities. The Ponding on the east side of State Highway 1 is from the Cal Trans late 2000 overly of State Highway 1. I Do not believe Cal Trans had engineered this overly and the effects it would have on the Oceano Community?

Cal Trans Workers January 4, 2007 shoveling Debris off of State Highway 1 into the Cal Trans 4 foot Right A-Way and the railroads storm water drainage channel instead of Removing Debris from entrance of Oceano Community Storm Water Drainage Channel.


Debris Shoveled by Cal Trans January 4, 2007 into the Oceano Community Storm Water Drainage Channel By Cal Trans Workers going outside of Cal Trans 4 foot Right-Away into the Railroads property in which Cal Trans Historiclly Maintained until 2000-2002 as noted in the Oceano 2004 drainage study preformed by the County of San Luis Obispo.



This is a still frame from Security Cameras December 19, 2007 of Cal Trans plowing Debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel after a rainstorm in the middle of the night.
In this security camera video still photo on the bottom left hand corner shows a Cal Trans grader work truck blade pointed towards the drainage channel with a worker in front of the drainage inlet. This was all caught on Security Cameras December 19, 2007 at 3AM?


Notice, Cal Trans Grader and position blade is pointed!

Security Video stills April 2, 2007 of Cal Trans shoveling debris into the Oceano Community Storm Water Drainage. Notice the Cal Trans worker in the drainage channel outside of Cal Trans 4 foot Right-Away Shoveling Debris.



Cal Trans Workers caught on Security Camerias shoveling debris off of Highway 1 into Oceano Community Storm Water Drainage Channel!


Cal Trans coming back later to continue to shovel debris into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel. Notice Cal Trans is not coming back to remove debris?

This pile of dirt and debris was shoveld into the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel November 26, 2008 by Cal Trans as seen in the video above and is still there today December 18, 2008
Caltrans Debris at inlet

These are Caltrans provided photos dated August 13, 2002 of Cal Trans November and December 2000 raising State Highway 1 with asphalt overlay on the north side of State Highway 1 as can be seen viewing the utilities in the street along with lack of concrete gutter at the drainage inlet. This overlay created a flooding, ponding problem which caused damage to inventory at the front of Oceano Nursery from splashing of the Cal Trans raiseing of Highway 1 above existing community properties. This raise of State Highway 1 removed storm water retention capicity in the railroads Storm water drainage retention channel between the railroad storm water inlet pipe and State Highway 1.











Notice the underground utilities that had been installed in the late eighties. The sidewalk is much lower then these utilities.









Cal Trans knew of Problems and Dangers that they would create by raising State Highway 1 in late 2000 from their engineers and documents in their possession. They chose to ignore these Dangers that they would cause to the public when they raised State Highway 1 and then no longer removed Debris in the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage Channel as Cal Trans had Historically Maintained in which Cal Trans, Oceano Community Service District and The County of San Luis Obispo have all Historically used for their Storm Water.

The County Of San Luis Obispo and the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board required Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange to install this berm and chain link fence around the County's, Cal Trans, Railroad and OCSD Storm Water retention pond raising the elevation around this retention basin in 1985. This photo was provided by Cal Trans.

Oceano Community Service District pumping out the POVE pond from the drainage change OCSD had made in December 2002 on the Railroads property which dredges debris into the POVE pond from the OCSD 6 inch PVC pipe cut five feet short of the Railroads drainage inlet pipe. Notice the fence and berm around the retention pond required by County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board!


This Photo was taken By Cal Trans showing Oceano Nursery while they were preparing to raise State Highway 1, December 2002 again without correcting their known drainage problems. This is an intentional disregard for public safety by Cal Trans! Notice the Nursery not flooding with over a foot and a half of water on State Highway 1!


The photo below is a Cal Trans Supervisor in 2004 attempting to stop cars from cutting the corner on 13th and State Highway 1 from the raised road and sidewalk Cal Trans had installed higher then existing property.


In late 2002 and early 2003 Cal Trans then removed a retaining wall on the west side of Highway 1 allowing the debris behind it to wash into the community’s storm water drainage system. At this time Cal Trans removed a previously installed County of San luis Obispo bike lane curb on 13th street before installing their new sidewalk shown below. Cal Trans never replaced this County Curb! The photo below shows an accident with a thirteen year old girl after this curb change.

An Elderly couple had no place to excape impact with Cal Trans leaving the wall of dirt on their 4 foot Right-Away. The elderly gentleman later Died!
The Cal Trans 2004 sidewalk attempt to stop cars from cutting the corner of the sidewalk they installed after they removed the County bike lane curb on 13th street; came after accidents in 2003 and early 2004 involving the little girl and an elderly couple. Cal Trans has continued to raise Highway 1 in 2006 ignoring their liability. Notice the little girls bicycle above under the car from her coming down 13th street and elderly couples car where the Cal Trans Retaining wall once was! Many accidents and injuries have occurred according to Cal Trans documents in wet weather and dry.
Notice the danger even for a Cal Trans maitenance supervisor as he installs cones in hopes of stopping cars from cutting the corner of their new Cal Trans sidewalk after an accident had happend.

Cal Trans in 2006 Raising State Highway 1 again after there 2002/2003 corecting their ponding problem that they had created in December 2000. Notice, the sign knocked down from an accident in wet weather flooding of State Highway 1 a few nights before!


Notice a prior elevation from a previous road before Cal Trans started plowing and shoveling debris into the communities storm water drainage channel between the RR inlet pipe and State Highway 1.


Oceano Community Service District flushing Water lines on Paso Robles Street after Cal Trans raised State Highway 1 in 2006.


Oceano Community Service District Water coming from OCSD flushing waterlines same day bringing debris to Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel, that Cal Trans chose not to correct from the signed March 13, 1985 Agreement with OCSD (Oceano Residents)!


Debris and Sedimentation being washed into Cal Trans, County of San Luis Obispo and Oceano Community Service District Storm Water Drainage Channel after Cal Trans Raised and restricted this Storm Water Retention between the RR storm water inlet pipe and State Highway 1!

Cal Trans 2006 creating a new ponding problem from their raising of State Highway 1 again


2004 a vehicle decides to take a detour instead of going through the flooded State Highway.
The County of San Luis Obispo issued building permits in the late seventies and mid Eighties to the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange and required them to alter the Oceano Communities Storm Water Drainage outlet that the County, Cal Trans, RR and OCSD use. See OCSD Letters to County, RR, POVE, on April 21, 1983 with OCSD claiming use of (prescriptive easement)“a natural drainage channel” running into a retention basin. OCSD Stated. Because this is an established drainage channel, the district feels that its full design capacity should be available for use.” The Railroad responded back April 29, 1983. “ It would appear that the channel mentioned in your letter was probably created to handle storm water runoff, and not the purpose to which you now intend to utilize it.”

The County ignored an agreement signed by Cal Trans and OCSD dated March 13, 1985 when the County and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board required POVE on March 27, 1985 to alter the Communities drainage outlet at Railroad street.!

The POVE Pond below shows an elevation change required by the County of San Luis Obispo and State Regional Water Quality Control Board on March 27, 1985 requiring POVE to install a berm around the County, Cal Trans, Railroads, OCSD Community Storm Water Retention basin/pond along with a chain link fence around this pond as required in the County’s March 27, 1985 letter for POVE to acquire a final for a County construction permit. This raise in elevation was then brought to POVE attention and threatened legal action by Cal Trans on January 16, 1986 in a letter stating an elevation change from 13.84 feet above Sea level to 15.38 feet above Sea level?

Cal Trans then wrote Southern Pacific Railroad on July 24, 1986 noting a silt problem which could only come from Cal Trans property as seen in Photos provided by Cal Trans. Cal Trans in their letter tried getting the Railroad to pay to make changes for their drainage system in which Cal Trans had already collected $5,000.00 from OCSD in a signed agreement between Cal Trans and OCSD on March 13, 1985 followed by a fully executed copy sent to OCSD by Cal Trans on April 4, 1985.

The County prior on December 26, 1984 had notified POVE that their floor drain system that drains into a sump was not permissible as per uniform pluming code sections 302 and 303 after receiving a complaint from OCSD December 13, 1984. The County planning department signed off the POVE Construction permit May 22, 1985 after the County’s chief building inspector approved the POVE “floor drain system draining to a sump and then to retention pond approved by Fred Norton.” The County of San Luis Obispo's Cheif Building inspector.
The County then permitted growth upstream from this blockage that added additional drainage into this now flawed County drainage system, as water travels down County Streets to State Highway 1 it brings dirt and debris with it that clogs the Railroads and the Oceano Communities Storm Water drainage inlet and outlet. The County at this time in the early 80’s was aware of drainage problems downstream on County property, caused by their prior expansion of the County Airport and the impacts to the Oceano Lagoon!

There are many County statements in the Cal Trans documents showing why the County of San Luis Obispo has refused to take responsibility for their prior drainage changes.

This is one of the documents the County had in their files and chose to withold from discovery showing a train accident and the OCSD PVC pipe in the Railroads storm water drainage pipe. This OCSD PVC Pipe runs 4500 hundred Gallons of water a day into this storm water drainage system


These photos in the County possession from a County 2002 Oceano Community drainage study with over 450 other documents which where witheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo and just provided to us on December 2, 2008 five months after our first trial for inverse condimination. These are photos that I had taken and provided to the County in their 2002 Drainage Study. They show Cal Trans, County and OCSD changeing the communities drainage since 2002.


These are additional photos of a train derailment provided to the County in their 2002 Questionaire as you can see above 1 of 2 at the top of the previous document?




County questionaire photos above of County maintained drainage channel downstream from Highway 1 in 2001 near Oceano lagoon. At this time this drainage was maintained by the County. The photos below where also witheld by the County in Discovery showing a larger drainage problem prior to 2004 on Highway 1 and Cienaga. Some of the 450 written documents talks about the County's knowledge of this problem at Cienaga. The next photo is where the Oceano Communities Storm water historically traveld onto County owned Property before the County had made downstream Drainage changes.


The County of San Luis Obispo dredged and expanded the Oceano lagoon as this 1949 aerial Photo shows the way the lagoon previously looked in the early 50’s. The County has since taken no responsibility for the County’s Sedimentation, going into the Oceano lagoon from their drainage change through County owned Airport property. Cal Trans on November 28, 1989 and May 20, 1992 wrote memorandums talking about their tort liability downstream if they correct the drainage on Highway 1 where this water and sedimentation ultimately goes!

In 1995 the County of San Luis Obispo allowed the Railroad to divide and sale there property for a profit without considering the County’s, Cal Trans and Oceano Community Service District’s use of the Railroads Storm Water Retention pond. The County did Require that Cal Trans Recieve an additional 10 feet easment on Railroad property for drainage purposes. This photo above shows the Railroads property before the County and Cal Trans changed the Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel. This photo was provided by Cal Trans from a 1973 Drainage study going to the Ocean

This Cal Trans 1953 Aerial Photo used in Cal Trans prior drainage studies shows the Oceano Communities Historic Drainage path to the Arroyo Grande Creek, before the County of San Luis Obispo removed the Community’s Historic Sand Dune known as the Palace Hotel site. In the upper middle-right hand corner Railroad Housing is observed where the drainage channel is today. A sanitation line runs under this location today; would have had County of San Luis Obispo and Cal Trans involvement in it’s, installation followed by maintenance by OCSD.

1962 Aerial photo of Drainage changes made by County of San Luis Obispo on County owned Airport property in which the County Collects $30,000.00 per year rental income instead of storing the County's and States Storm Water runoff on!

In this 1962 photo the Drainage path did not leave the Railroads property any differn't then it does today, however today we have flooding! You, can see the drainage path going the same direction as it does today.

This aerial photo was taken in 1969 after the drainage inlet change on State Highway 1. At the bottom of the Airport is a Storm Water Retention site with the drainage going south instead of west to the Oceano Lagoon as it does today. Notice new Airport paving where the palace hotel site once was!

Notice the empty farm field in the 1969 photo behind the County's Storm Water retention pond on County Airport property. The County collects $30,000.00 per year rental income from this Farm Field which could retain the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage coming from Cal Trans, The County and OCSD propertys.

Notice below the Wetland habitat in this 1949 photo at the bottom of the County Airport runway. This is where the Communitys Historic Storm water Drainage traveled before the County changed this drainge course.

Notice, old Railroad buildings where the drainage channel is today. The communitie's drainage water even exited the property as it does today, but without a retention pond used by Cal Trans and the County.
Aerial photo before Airport. Notice the Historic Palace Hotel site Sand Dune and what was at the time Fountain ave. It would appear the County has made some major changes to the Oceano Communities drainage system.

THE OCEANO COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
Oceano Community Service District has been involved in drainage since forming their district in 1980; building their buildings and district well sites; not using OCSD property for onsite storm water drainage detention and retention, instead making a deal and paying Cal Trans in 1985 to dispose of their water along with Cal Trans water. The Community Service District was informed by Southern Pacific Railroad on April 29, 1983 of the intended purpose of their railroad inlet and outlet stating. “It would appear that the channel mentioned in your letter was probably created to handle storm water runoff, and not the purpose to which you now intend to utilize it.”

These photos show the Oceano Community Service District 6 inch PVC pipe ran directly into the Railroads intended use of the Oceano Community's Storm Water Drainage channel as OCSD was informed by the Railroad in 1983 of the Railroads intended use of this Storm Water Runoff System This pipe was installed as "A blow-off system is required on any large well that pumps water directly into the water system. The purpose of a blow-off system is to prevent a shock(water hammer to the system when a large well starts and stops." This system as stated by OCSD on June 7, 2005 pumps "( approximately 2500 gallons during start up and approximately 2000 gallons during shut down)."


OCSD realizing for the first time in December 2002 of a potential problem that they had created with their well blow off system cut five feet off of their previous PVC pipe drainage change as stated "I had Dan saw off the 6 inch pipe and end it 5 feet in front of the curlvert so that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrance to the curlvert." This came from OCSD daily logs dated December 20, 2002. This un-enginered drainage change/improvement? 'on going construction' has caused the Railroad drainage system to finally stop working as OCSD now dredges debris into the Railroad pipe plugging the RR drainage pipe inside. This shows that no Stabilization is able to occur with OCSD ongoing drainage changes. OCSD has continually changed this system since 1984 knowing of soil erosion



In 2005 after flooding in 2004 and then major flooding January 3, 2005 OCSD again weed abated the Railroad property, however they chose to leave their 6 inch PVC pipe directly in the Railroads intended use of this channel for Storm Water runoff. Notice the old metal pipe that OCSD uncoverd left in the drainage channel. OCSD was aware of how sedimentation/erosion works from their June 7, 2005 institutional recollection letter about the installation of the six-inch well blow off line at Well # 8

With this cleaning of the drainage channel and OCSD useing Arroyo Grande equipment and personell to fully dredge out the Railroads drainage system, the flooding stopped for the rest of 2005. For the rest of the year many rains came and washed debris off of Highway 1 into the drainage channel without fruther clean-up later in the year by OCSD. As stated in the OCSD june 7, 2005 letter "During the Summer months (dry season) the well is normally operated once a day." This would be 4500 gallons of water and debris dredged into the RR drainage system daily!

At the Jaunuary 10, 2005 OCSD video taped meeting with the County and Cal Trans present regarding the OCSD pvc pipe in the community's storm water drainage channel, OCSD States "that issue is being addressed." OCSD has continued to ignore this pipe in the community's storm water drainage channel. This pipe is not in the vicinity of this drainage channel it is in the community's storm water drainage channel!
Notice, how the PVC pipe blocks debris at the Railroads drainage inlet pipe and that OCSD was not able in their weed abatement to remove the sedimentation around their pipe as we had seen previously a Cal Trans photo of the drainage channel cleaned without the OCSD pipe blocking debris in the drainage channel. This photo was taken in January 2006 after the whorst ever flooding of Highway 1 since 2004 and 2005 and shows the metal pipe that OCSD had previously uncoverd and left blocking the Railroads intended use of this storm water drainage system. The debris field in this flood went another 400 feet north past this blockage.
As you can see from these photos with the OCSD PVC pipe now cut five feet short of the Railroad inlet any time OCSD operates there Well # 8 they are going to dredge debris into the Railroads intended use of theirs and the Community's Storm Water Drainage Channel and Railroad drainage pipe.

Notice the debris after a rain storm washed directly in front of OCSD Well # 8 PVC pipe that comes from under Highway 1 directly into the communities Storm Water Drainage Channel.

Oceano Community Service District well # 8 running and pusing debris into Railroads drainage inlet in 2004 in the middle of summer after the OCSD 2004 weed abatement of the railroad property in which they left the debris on the ground for errosion control as they stated to the newspaper. This photo as seen of OCSD dredging debris and water into the Railroads pipe goes against the December 20, 2002 Daily log of OCSD stating "I Had Dan saw off the 6 inch pipe and end it 5 feet in front of the curlvert so that there will be no danger of the pipe plugging debris at the entrence to the culvert."

Debris dredged into Railroad pipe from OCSD on opposite end from RR inlet.


This is more of the debris left on the ground in the OCSD 2004 weed abatement while the Community's Storm Water Drainge Channel fills up with water from Well # 8 running having already clogged the Railroad pipe. Notice the stumps from trees cut down by OCSD. In the 2005 weed abatement photos above OCSD had these Stumps removed.
OCSD By actually doing maintanence to the Railroads pipe and the POVE pipe have shown in there daily log January 3, 2005 that the flooding of Highway 1 and my property can be stopped with just doing maintanence of unclogging blockages in the Railroads and POVE pipes from OCSD dredgeing debris into this drainage system all year!

The Oceano Community Service District in the mid 80’s had installed a well on the east side of Highway 1 and then ran a 6 inch well blow off line under Highway 1 directly into the Railroad’s drainage inlet. This pipe today causes sedimentation and debris to build-up especially from OCSD weed abatement practices in 2004 and 2005 of leaving debris on the ground for erosion control?

The Photos below show OCSD running their Well and dredgeing debris into the Railroads intended use of there drainage system. The Railroad has allowed OCSD to do this going against the Railroads own advice.

This photo was taken at the same time with the Railroads drainage pipe clogged OCSD water had no other place to go other then flooding Highway 1. This is more water then 4500 gallons!
Notice, from this photo the true sag in Highway 1 where a previous drainage channel once left Highway 1, also notice the Cal Trans light pole and tree in their Right-Away! All of this water is from OCSD running their Well #8!These are OCSD employees only shoveling debris to the edges of the drainage channel, without removeing this debris from the Railroads drainage channel.
Notice the PVC pipe that OCSD Ignores and where they are shoveling this debris!
OCSD maintaining debris that they had dredged into the railroads drainage pipe system. This compacts this drainage system with 4500 gallons of water daily!
The Debris on the ground to the right was left from the OCSD 2004 weed abatement for what they said was errosion control.





UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD/SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

Union Pacific Railroad/Southern Pacifc owned the inlet and outlets for the Oceano Community’s drainage in the late seventies and mid nineties and allowed their tenant Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange after recieving building permits from the County Of San Luis Obispo to build over the railroad’s own intended purpose of their railroad inlet and outlet. The Drainage system traveled the same direction as seen in the 1962 aerial photo proviously above. They were aware of the Oceano Community Service District 2004 weed abatement and the debris left on the ground from this weed abatement for erosion control in 2004 by OCSD as they were billed in 2004 and 2005 for weed abatement and later debris removal. Southern Pacific railroad contacted OCSD in 1983 regarding drainage issues and the intended use of the drainage channel on Southern Pacific property.

August 8, 1985 Cal Trans Communicated with Southern Pacific RR on regarding Cal Trans plans to change the drainage system going under Southern Pacifics RR tracks.

May 12, 1986 Southern Pacific RR wrote Cal Trans stating that they had no objection to Cal Trans making drainage changes under their tracks.

July 23, 1986 Cal Trans wrote Southern Pacific RR to attempt to get the Rail Road to enter into a service contract in which Cal Trans and OCSD would pay $12,000.00 and the railroad would construct and maintain the new culvert. Southern Pacific wrote back to Cal Trans February 17, 1987 having no objection to allow the state to make drainage changes however expecting to be reimbursed for RR inspection costs concerning this project.

September 25, 1987 Cal Trans wrote the County Of San Luis Obispo showing the full cost for the Railroads proposed drainage solution to be$15,070.00 and a grand total to fix this whole drainage system after previously taking $5,000.00 from Oceano residents to be $43,295.00

November 28. 1989 Frank M. Lentz of Cal Trans in a Memorandum to Robert j. Derea Cal Trans Legal Division. Talks about a July 1988 tenative plan to take legal action against Southern Pacific Railroad

May 20, 1992 Steve Hendrickson of Cal Trans writes in a Cal Trans Memorandum of a drainage project was to be funded by Cal Trans, Oceano Community Service District, San luis Obispo County and the Railroad. Cal Trans the n writes. "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 particpating agencies responsible."

'To Date, no direction has been recieved from our legal division nor has the railroad or it's lessee proposed a solution."

These are Railroad employees maintaining and working on their drainage system in 2007 the debris that they shoveld onto their bank is still there today! Notice the OCSD pipe higher then their debris removal?
The Concrete Bag that the Railroad employee is being directed to remove was installed to improve the community's drainage system by Cal Trans in December 2002. This Concrete bag was then left in the Railroads drainage channel by Railrod employees.



Again OCSD 2005 Weed abatement photo below with POVE maintenence Supervisor above in 2004/2005 viewing OCSD PVC pipe blocking drainage channel. This Pipe as OCSD wrote June 7, 2005 pumps 4500 gallons of water daily. Notice the debris that goes with this 4500 gallons of water daily!

In 1995 the Railroad knew of drainage problems from their property from Cal Trans however, they decided to start selling their properties in Oceano for a profit and sold POVE their property for a profit at which time drainage easements were recorded with the County of San Luis Obispo along Highway 1 giving Cal Trans an additional use of 10 feet Offer Of Dedication For Road And Drainage Purposes. The only use Cal Trans has taken of their property since is removing a retaining wall and allowing their debris to go into State Highway 1 and then shovel and plow this debris into the Oceano Communities’ Storm Water Drainage Channel.

Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange before purchasing their property from Southern Pacific Railroad was allowed by the County Of San Luis Obispo to build over the Community’s Storm Water Drainage outlet with the County Of San Luis Obispo knowing of the County Airport changes made downstream that had caused flooding on Fountain Ave in which the County Of San Luis Obispo had previously been sued for!

On December 26, 1984 a County Building inspector notified POVE that their floor drain system that drains into a sump and then is pumped into an onsite retention basin is not permissible as per the Uniform Plumbing Code sections 302 and 303.

On December 13, 1984 the Oceano Community Service District Notified the County that Regarding POVE’s Reconstruction they would “not allow wash water from the POVE vegetables or floor wash water to enter into its sanitary sewer system.”

Today the County of San Luis Obispo, Cal Trans, Oceano Community Service District, Union Pacific Railroad all use the retention holding basin for their Storm Water Runoff mixed with POVE’S Vegetable Wash Wastewater and Sludge.

The Photos of Oceano Market/Gas Station flooded along with highway 1 closed, and my property, should be a concern to the County and Cal Trans. It is time for the County and Cal Trans to correct the problems that they have created.