Oceano flooding battle rages on

March 13, 2010

An Oceano business owner has taken his fight to stop the flooding that plagues his former business to the state appeals court. [NewTimes]

In 2006, Bill Bookout sued Caltrans, the Oceano Community Services District, San Luis Obispo County, the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange, and the Union Pacific Railroad. He lost the suit and in 2008 laid off 12 employees and closed the Oceano Nursery.

Bookout has taken dozens of photos of Caltrans’ employees shoveling debris into a drainage channel which he contends increases incidents of flooding. Over the past year, the highway and his business have flooded 13 times.

San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Katcho Achadjian told New Times that the appeals case will help identify the party responsible for the flooding problems.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

————————-California residents should never have to see there government affect public safety for a drainage problem that costs only $43,295.00 dollers to fix!

Caltrans should never be allowed to Shovel and Grade Contaminated Storm Water and debris into a State drainage system as seen on YOUTUBE under Caltrans and Inverse Condemnation Added to

Quicklist 1:12 http://www.oceanonursery.com

California State Assemblymebers–John Perez, California State Senators Abel Maldonado


From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]

Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:45 PM

To: ‘assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov’

Cc: ‘AssemblymemberArambula@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.huber@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Hayashi@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Fuentes@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Fong@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Eng@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.villines@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.torrico@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Saldana@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Saldana@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.niello@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Mendoza@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Maldonado@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Yee@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Yee@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Wright@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Wolk@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Wiggins@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Walters@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Strickland@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Steinberg@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Simitian@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Runner@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Romero@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Pavley@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Padilla@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.McLeod@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Lowenthal@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Liu@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Leno@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Kehoe@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Huff@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Hollingsworth@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Harman@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Hancock@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Florez@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Dutton@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Ducheny@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.DeSaulnier@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Denham@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Cox@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Correa@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Corbett@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Cogdill@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Calderon@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Ashburn@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Alquist@senate.ca.gov’; ‘Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov’; ‘senator.Maldonado@sen.ca.gov’; ‘scurran@thetribunenews.com’; ‘bcuddy@thetribunenews.com’; ‘exec@montereycoastkeeper.org’; ‘eslater@timespressrecorder.com’; ‘crigley@newtimesslo.com’; ‘rmiller@newtimesslo.com’; ‘SANDRA SHEFFIELD’; ‘Weber, Tad – SLO’; ‘kachadjian@co.slo.ca.us’; ‘mmecija@ksby.com’; ‘g.r.hensley@sbcglobal.net’; ‘econnolly@newtimesslo.com’; ‘mglover@sacbee.com’; ‘davecongalton@edbroadcasters.com’; ‘velie@calcoastnews.com’

Subject: RE: Our California Constitution

Dear State Senators and State Assembly Members and all News Media———————–

New California case law regarding Inverse Condemnation will be decided on May 6, 2010 in the Appellate Court Case Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation in the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors building at 9:30 am.

To Be Decided:

1) Can Caltrans shovel and Grade Contaminated Storm Water and Debris into our California Storm Water Drainage systems? This will affect all Counties in California!

2) Can California County’s withhold evidence and whiteness’s from discovery?

3) Are Superior Court Judges allowed to determine what evidence is withheld from discovery and assist in withholding evidence from discovery as stated by Judge Tangeman in Exhibit # 579—“And for the purpose of the exhibits we don’t need the photographs.” The Court Judge Tangeman—States: “All Right”

4) Is Caltrans allowed in California to raise our State Highways without addressing drainage issues?

5) Is local Government allowed to daily dredge debris and Community Well water into storm water drainage systems? Judge Tangeman Stated in regards to the video evidence. “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 being discharged from Well No. 8, there was an absence of evidence that such discharges occurred contemporaneously with heavy rains and flooding problems.”

6) Are California Superior Court Judges allowed to ignore California case law presented to them dealing with inverse Condemnation? Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722.

7) If California Superior Court Judges can change trial Court testimony. Judge Tangeman misheard Caltrans Testimony on Page 936 As stated–“Now, the – we saw earlier a photograph of a Caltrans loader, as you described it , actually in the channel. Do you have – I mean, can you tell us why that was done? To your understanding , why that would have been done?” Answer. “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.” Question. Do you have a problem with your employees doing “Good Neighbor” sort of deeds like that?” Answer. “NO, we do – We try to do that when we can.” This is what Judge Tangeman stated in his August 5, 2008 ruling that changes the true testimony of Caltrans “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”

2nd Appellate District Top of Form

Change court Supreme District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Div 1 District 4 Div 2 District 4 Div 3 District 5 District 6

Bottom of Form

Court data last updated: 05/03/2010 05:05 PM

Case Summary Docket Scheduled Actions Briefs

Disposition Parties and Attorneys Trial Court

Case Summary

Trial Court Case: CV060384

Court of Appeal Case: B214906

Division: 6

Case Caption: Bookout et al. v. State of California Dept. of Transportation

Case Type: CV

Filing Date: 03/17/2009

Oral Argument Date/Time: 05/06/2010 09:30 AM

I just visited oceanonursery and am very alarmed at the fact that the health & safety of the people of Oceano is second to the Baughman property!

Rains coming again this week, I hope it doesn’t flood! I will be checking youtube to see if Caltrans is caught on video once again shoveling debris into drainage channels.

It is a shame that Caltrans has chose not to fix a known drainage problem to our State Highway as seen in Caltrans documents that (Inverse Condemnation), has made us aware of!

Why would Caltrans raise our State Highway a foot and not take into account a prior drainage problem as seen in their documents?

———-As presented to Judge Tangeman at trial—produced by the State of California/Caltrans and seen in PDF files at wwwoceanonurserycom are Caltrans documents with these quotes prior to Caltrans raising State Highway 1 a foot and then shoveling and grading their contaminated storm water and debris into the Oceano Communities storm water drainage channel leading to the Oceano County Airport and the Baughman property in which the County of San Luis Obispo withheld evidence from Discovery!

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)”