Forums » Local & National Politics

All Forums:  Advertisers | Book Club | Community Watch | General Discussion | Politics | Recipes | Support     New Topics & Replies

Local Levees

    • 4977 posts
    1
    August 18, 2017 12:45:00 PM PDT

    I don't understand completely so I'm hoping cleanup, Old Sarge or Dick Boyd can help. 

     

    After the 1986 flood, the state tried to pass liability for levees to the Feds. The Feds had passed legislation to hold themselves harmless. This left the state on the hook when their own attempt to be free of liability failed. 

    When the state looked at miles and miles and levees and the liability risk, they condemned levees in some areas like Y-S. This left the locals in charge of the levees.


    Agencies like YCWA will give grants to help fund projects but they will not get into building/maintaining levees either. 

     

    We've been told the supervisors at the time of the settlement of the Paterno suit and such agreed to be responsible for the local levees. It appears now the state more or less dumped responsibility on the counties and cities. 

     

    Maybe someone out there can explain this better and help everyone understand how we got from there to here.

     

    Please leave TRLIA funding and accusations out of it; that's for another thread. 

    • 2564 posts
    2
    August 18, 2017 10:44:50 PM PDT
    2Grands said:

    I don't understand completely so I'm hoping cleanup, Old Sarge or Dick Boyd can help. 

     

    Landmark events:

    Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities.

    The basis for federal jurisdiction over navigable waters lies in the U.S. Constitution. Since the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) gives the federal government extensive authority to regulate interstate commerce. This view originated in 1824 in the landmark case of gibbons v. ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23. In Gibbons, the Court was faced with deciding whether to give precedence to a state or federal law for the licensing of vessels. It ruled that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the nation is a form of interstate commerce and thus federal law must take precedence. This decision led to the contemporary exercise of broad federal power over navigable waters, and in countless other areas of interstate commerce.

     

    Navigable waterways, 33 USC, CFR 33

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_waterways_of_the_United_States

     

    Dayton, Ohio Easter 1913

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dayton_Flood

     

     

    St. Francis dam 1928

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

     

    Hurricane Betsy, 1965

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Betsy

     

    Who is in charge? That depends. Depends on how much money is involved, who has to collect the money and what the money is spent on. And who can afford to hire the attorneys.

    Will Green and bypass. Humphrie's thesis. Levee wars. hundred yea, not thousand year flood planning.

    Gibbons v. Ogen has strange, unintended consequences. Much of California land was claimed by people who put a row boat into a wagon and rode around dry ground in the row boat.

    The Feds avoid getting into state operations.States avoid getting into county business. When everyone is in charge, no one is in charge.

    • 2564 posts
    3
    August 18, 2017 10:57:03 PM PDT
    2Grands said:

    I don't understand completely so I'm hoping cleanup, Old Sarge or Dick Boyd can help. 

     



    Agencies like YCWA will give grants to help fund projects but they will not get into building/maintaining levees either. 

     

    We've been told the supervisors at the time of the settlement of the Paterno suit and such agreed to be responsible for the local levees. It appears now the state more or less dumped responsibility on the counties and cities. 

     

    Antideficiency Act

     

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

     

     

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

    The Antideficiency Act (ADA), Pub.L. 97–258, 96 Stat. 923, is legislation enacted by the United States Congress to prevent the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures (outlays) in excess of amounts available in appropriations or funds. The law was initially enacted in 1884, with major amendments occurring in 1950 (64 Stat. 765) and 1982 (96 Stat. 923). It is now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341. The ADA prohibits the federal government from entering into a contract that is not "fully funded" because doing so would obligate the government in the absence of an appropriation adequate to the needs of the contract. This Act of Congress is sometimes known as Section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.

     

    Legilation that requires something to be done of prohibits something is called a suggestion if the money to pay for it is not idendified. But not to worry, elected officials ignore monetary requirements and get away with it. Why? Because, in my opinion, people really don't care. And if someone cares enough to speak out, it is easy to shut them up.

    • 2564 posts
    4
    August 18, 2017 11:01:18 PM PDT
    Oh, if an elected official does suggest collecting money to pay for legislation, Jon Coupal, the Howard Jarvis Tax Association, Tom McClintock,\and the Territorial Dispatch will be all over them.
    • 6429 posts
    5
    August 19, 2017 7:03:06 PM PDT
    In 2003 the levee work was to start and be completed by 2008 based on the Yuba River south bank levee being rated as deficient in seepage through and under the levee, by the Kleinfeld engineering firm but yuba county did not realize their were giant boulders dumped into the break site which blocked a slurry wall the County was constructing , on the west side of the south bank levee leaving what Kleinfelder felt was a possibility of the levee breaking again if conditions such as 1986 occurred again. The Head engineer of the Corps of engineers Colonel Ronald L. Light , PE USA Corps of engineers agreed with kleinfeld's and my statements that the Counties levee work was anemic due to non work applied by the county.

    The South Bank of the Yuba River was to get upgrades but the county did not do the upgrades on the Levee between the UPRR tracks and the highway 70 bridge, but they reported to the state they completed the work, sent signed invoices along with the statements, and were paid by the state with no overseeing by audits, inspections or what have you.
    • 6429 posts
    6
    August 20, 2017 8:01:14 AM PDT
    The Yuba River left bank levee that broke in 1986 was about 90 years old and being built by farmers as a way to hold back high water from their crops. With no levee standards to meet because there was no standards at the time, the mound of sand grew as the high water grew higher and in the early 1940s Yuba county took the "Levee" into their levee system and the state took the system into their state water system.

    In1986 the levee was saturated with torrents of rain stacked up in storms stretching out into the pacific one after another until the levee was saturated and failed.
    There was no standards in the life of the levee as proved in the Paterno law suit and to this day it has had no actual work on the levee proper except for a slurry wall placed in the levee in 2005 that was to run from the Highway 70 bridge just south of Marysville to the Union Pacific Rail Road tracks but after running into the Giant boulders they could not complete the project and it remains not completed to this day. No levee work has been done on the levee proper at all.

    The State took over the levee system and the paterno law suit found that since the state was using the levee as part of their flood control system they were liable for the levee as the court found.

    The state has tried to get held harmless from any floods by getting the Reclamation 784 board to accept liability but the levee is not a vehicle to trade or sell but a levee flood protection that is to protect the people of Linda, Olivehurst, arboga and now plumas lake that was permitted tom build in the flood plain before levees were certified by the Corps of engineers. State Laws have been changed to permit just any Engineer with a conflict of interest certify the Yuba River south bank levee even with dangerous boulders dumped into the levee and destroying the Foundation of the levee and removing any chance of getting the levee ever certified by the proper and safe method of inspecting known anemic sections of the levee such as the area of the 1986 levee event.

    • 6429 posts
    7
    August 20, 2017 2:43:17 PM PDT
    The Corps of Engineers top engineer in Sacramento would not certify the levee because he knew the condition of the Levee at levee mile marker 0.79 , when the contractor flattened the water side of the levee in 2009 he partitioned off the section of levee that broke in 1986 and ordered his people to not work on that section, I contacted the contractor the day they were working and he told me they were ordered not work on that section.

    In 2005 the county supervisors hired many many people in addition to the amount they already had, gave them new pay scales, awarded them with retirements , bought new equipment , property based I imagine on the Multi Millions received from the State water projects employees who sent The County money for invoices showing supposed construction of levee work on the South bank Of The Yuba River without overseeing the "Work " by the county. Even after I requested and got three state engineers, a local newspaper man and a Sacramento lawyer to come with me and look at the very levee area that the County said they constructed sand berms at and we all saw there was giant trees and buildings where a sand berm would be. I took the people along the levee and showed them where the county water agency said levee work was done and they saw no work had been done there either.!

    Now recently the county administrator Bendorf said in the Appeal democrat the county may have to tax the people to pay the Retirement funds. Since the county officials hired all those extra people, assistants to assistants, Deputy shoe shiners, or whatever and the levee golden cow is no more, Remove the extra people instead of taxing the people, or a uprising may be right here in Yuba county.
    • 6429 posts
    8
    August 20, 2017 7:15:58 PM PDT
    Back in the 1980,s yuba county had a resident totaling 72,000 , the resident totaling now is about 72,000 , back in the 1980 s our visible patrol deputy's done the JOB and the people worked with us.
    • 4977 posts
    9
    August 21, 2017 10:30:24 AM PDT
    Nice job cleanup - instead of explaining how the state discharged the levees onto jurisdictions like Yuba County, you turned it in to something about YOU and local corruption.

    Local corruption had nothing to do with how our county ended up being on the hook for local levees. The Feds also made sure they aren't liable either.

    My question for you is why can't you answer a question without going off on tangents?

    I asked about the levees and how responsibility shifted; you turn that into Bendorf, visible patrols, newspaper reporters and your guests looking at levees.

    I think the YCWA has some information about how all this transpired.
    • 6429 posts
    10
    August 21, 2017 11:11:59 AM PDT
    The Yuba county supervisors accepted the "responsibility" for the levees in return for funding from the state. All people have to do is look at the documents honest state engineers sent under the freedom of information act, that shows Large amounts of millions of dollars for county work that never happened.

    The South bank of the Yuba River levee from the junction ( where the Feather and Yuba Meet) to the west side of the Highway 70 bridge to the East side of the highway 70 bridge and on to the west side of the Shad road was constructed with sand berms. According to state department of Water documents spread sheets shows they paid the County multi millions of dollars for the work, HOWEVER, no work was done.

    To this day there are no sand berms constructed there that the state paid in reimbursement to the county Multi Millions ( $ 43,000,000.00 ) for , the very first invoice was signed by Public Works director Kevin Mallen for construction of sand berms at the site.

    There are no sand berms there to this day.

    The Yuba County Water agency manager, Curt Akins sent a request to the state department of Water for over a hundred millions dollars for the county construction of the south bank levee upgrades from the Highway 70 bridge to the Union pacific Rail Road Tracks, But no work was constructed there either. No work on the Yuba River South Bank Levee from the Western Pacific rail Road to the Union pacific Rail road was done. TRLIA engineer Ric Rinhhart told us upon being questioned why that the Corps said they did not have to do work there, however Curt akins requested in a letter to the state reclamation board for reimbursement of millions of TRLIA dollars that he said TRLIA had spent on the work and he was asking for reimbursements.

    All of this is filed in documents filed for claim with the State Auditor of California , The State Attorney General, the FBI and others.
    • 4977 posts
    11
    August 21, 2017 11:36:54 AM PDT
    "The Yuba county supervisors accepted the "responsibility" for the levees in return for funding from the state. "

    Can you prove this? From what other experts have stated, the state did exactly what the Feds had previously done and removed themselves from liability.

    What I'm saying and what you are claiming aren't quite the same thing.

    YCWA is not in the levee business. They help with funds for projects. Can you provide a copy of the letter showing Aikens requested the state to reimburse for funds spent? Did he request a reimbursement for TRLIA or for funds the YCWA provided to help with levee work?

    You continue to state FBI, the State AG, and others yet not one has ever come forth and supported your claims. This thread wasn't supposed to be about anything but how the State discharged itself from liability of the levees and dumped it on the county. We aren't the only area where this has happened as it has happened all over the state.

    And Cleanup, if you go out to where the levee broke in '86 there is a lot of work that has been done. For those of us that have lived here for decades before and after the 86' flood it is obvious.
    • 6429 posts
    12
    August 21, 2017 12:21:36 PM PDT
    To the people, I am posting documented proof of government fraud of Federal funds by local officials, for your safety, I am doing this. I will post the letter from Curt Akins, manager of The Yuba County water agency, where he asks the state to contact the Federals for reimbursement of millions of dollars that Yuba county supposedly spent of their own funds.

    These people have banked on the Yuba county citizens not knowing levee work from a broomstick, They are the worst kind, just like the city of Bell and others in southern california officials who have tried to get away with stealing our citizens tax funds. I will now try to paste the Letter which I planned to do.
    • 6429 posts
    13
    August 21, 2017 12:51:28 PM PDT

    The letter can be seen here:

     

    https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArtrnuP-ohEPhakocb4wvI0-hCzebQ

    • 6429 posts
    14
    August 21, 2017 1:21:32 PM PDT
    Highway 70 is one mile west of Union pacific Rail Road and Simpson lane road is two miles east of Highway 70.

    The County requested to be reimbursed two times for the highway 70 to union pacific Railroad.

    Just like the county charging at least three times for sands berms from West of the Highway 70 bridge to the east of the highway 70 bridge and on to west of Shad road.
    • 6429 posts
    15
    August 21, 2017 1:33:35 PM PDT
    And, the county did not do the work . The (work) the Yuba county Water agency claimed 89,000,000 for was four sections of the South Bank of the Yuba Levee-consisting of cobble stones in section A , levee flattening in sections B , C, and D in the water side of the levee and a slurry wall from The union pacific railroad to Simpson lane. The only actual work completed was the slurry wall.

    • 4977 posts
    16
    August 21, 2017 1:52:51 PM PDT
    The letter says nothing specifically about the area you continually cite. In my layperson's opinion and the fact that no expert backs you up I see why this letter caused zero alarm.

    You want everyone to believe that the State of California and The Federal Government gave Yuba County and TRLIA $43 MILLION without so much as checking on a single thing?
    That no politician or official came here from Sacramento and viewed the site and any work?
    The groundbreaking ceremonies that have happened on so many projects and no one, not any person, no authority, no expert, no one but Earnest Rex Archer could tell there was a scam going on?
    And everyone from the Federal government representatives to State Authorities and politicians all the way down to local officials including your friend Mary Jane Griego, supervisor, said nothing? All were on the take but you?

    Thanks for hijacking a thread in another attempt to remain relevant in Yuba County.
    I was afraid when I posted my original question that this would happen.


    • 4977 posts
    17
    August 21, 2017 1:55:51 PM PDT
    All the YCWA did was ask for reimbursement of money it provided. There's no crime in that. It isn't their job or responsibility to monitor work on levees.
    Are you throwing stuff at everyone and hoping just once something will stick? Sure sounds like it.
    60+ legal entities say you have no case.
    • 6429 posts
    18
    August 21, 2017 3:27:13 PM PDT
    City of Bell scandal
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Robert Rizzo" redirects here. For the German musician, see Robert Hunecke-Rizzo.

    The Bell scandal involved the misappropriation of public funds in Bell, California, United States over a period of several years in the first decade of the 21st century. In July 2010, the Los Angeles Times published an investigative article on possible malfeasance in the neighboring city of Maywood, revealing that the city officials of Bell received salaries that were reported as the highest in the nation.[1] Subsequent investigations found atypically high property tax rates, allegations of voter fraud in municipal elections and other irregularities which heightened the ensuing scandal.[2] These and other reports led to widespread criticism and a demand for city officials to resign.[3][4]

    In the end, seven Bell city officials, including former mayor Oscar Hernandez, former city administrator Robert Rizzo, assistant city administrator Angela Spaccia, and four city council members were convicted on graft and corruption charges, and were given sentences ranging from probation to twelve years in prison.[5

    This is one of the corrupt fraud driven city's.
    • 6429 posts
    19
    August 21, 2017 3:37:43 PM PDT
    Prosecutor says Corrupt Officials Siphoned $43 Million from ...
    blackchristiannews.com/2016/05/prosecutor-says-corrupt...

    Prosecutor says Corrupt Officials Siphoned $43 Million from California City. ... Authorities say the suspects used their positions as city officials to funnel tax ...
    • 6429 posts
    20
    August 21, 2017 3:44:02 PM PDT
    7 former top officials of Beaumont charged with corruption
    Veronica Rocha and Joseph Serna



    Prosecutors on Tuesday announced charges against seven former top officials in the city of Beaumont, alleging a sweeping web of corruption that dates back more than two decades and cost taxpayers nearly $43 million.

    The Riverside County district attorney's office accused the officials of an elaborate scam involving the sale of municipal bonds for projects handled by companies in which they had a financial interest. They also alleged officials secured interest-free loans for friends and colleagues with taxpayer money.

    “Public servants must remember a basic truth – we serve the people. Any money handled by a city or any government is the people’s money and should be handled as such,” said Riverside County Dist. Atty. Mike Hestrin at a news conference. “Those who run our governments and make the laws are not above the law.”

    Hestrin added the case should be a cautionary note to other cities to ensure contracting is free of conflicts of interest and waste.

    Prosecutors allege that the Beaumont corruption was able to continue for so long in part because it involved so many officials in the city of 40,000 about 78 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

    In court documents filed Tuesday, Hestrin accused former City Manager Alan Kapanicas, former Economic Development Director David William Dillon, former Public Works Director Deepak Moorjani, former Planning Director Ernest Alois Egger, former Finance Director William Kevin Aylward, former City Atty. Joseph Sandy Aklufi and former Police Chief Francis Dennis Coe Jr. of years of white-collar crimes.

    If convicted, the defendants would be forbidden from ever serving in public office again, prosecutors said. With the exception of Egger, all were arrested Tuesday and are expected to appear in court Thursday. Egger is expected to surrender to authorities Wednesday, officials said.

    Tuesday’s charges followed more than a year of investigation by the district attorney’s Public Integrity Team, which found that Dillon, Egger and Moorjani had used their public offices to enrich themselves personally and secure interest-free loans for friends and colleagues with taxpayer money.



    Beaumont was at the center of a public corruption probe in April 2015 when investigators with the district attorney’s office and the FBI raided City Hall. They hauled away dozens of boxes of records, computers and other items.

    At the time, sources familiar with the investigation said the raid was part of an ongoing investigation of the municipality’s business relationship and contracts with Urban Logic Consultants Group, a Beaumont firm whose offices were also searched by investigators, officials said in a statement.

    Authorities said Tuesday that the investigation turned up evidence of alleged improper ties between the company’s principals – Dillon, Egger and Moorjani – and their decisions as the heads of Beaumont’s economic development, planning and public works departments, respectively.

    According to investigators, the three urged city leaders to issue bonds, which were then used to contract work to Urban Logic Consultants and turned them a profit, prosecutors said.

    In 2003, the city approved a fee on new developments to help fund regional transportation projects, prosecutors said. Those fees amounted to more than $36 million. But instead of sending the money to regional projects, Kapanicas, Dillon, Moorjani, Egger, Aylward and Aklufi allegedly manipulated city documents, kept the money in Beaumont and then spent it on Urban Logic Consultants contracts.

    From 2010 to 2013, Kapanicas and Aylward worked with Coe to secure the police chief two interest-free loans with city money. In total, the group lent more than $113,000 to Coe and other Beaumont Police Department employees, prosecutors allege.

    At the same time, Kapanicas and Aylward were also allegedly inflating sales tax by lending its resale tax permit to Beaumont Electric, a private business. The two never requested City Council approval before awarding the company an interest-free $6.2-million loan to purchase electrical equipment, officials said.

    Urban Logic has provided planning, engineering and economic development services to Beaumont for the last two decades.
    Why the city of Maywood is facing a state audit and a probe by the district attorney

    In 2010, several former directors of Urban Logic sued a Beaumont citizens group for defamation and trade libel. The lawsuit was rejected, and in an appellate court ruling affirming the lawsuit’s dismissal, a judicial panel noted that three of Urban Logic’s then-principals — Moorjani, Egger and Dillon — had held top posts at Beaumont City Hall until August 2009.

    Moorjani has previously stated that the FBI, the city and the company had investigated allegations of misconduct and no wrongdoing had been found, according to the appellate ruling.

    In May 2014, an Orange County Superior Court judge issued a ruling that Beaumont failed to contribute to regional transportation projects for nearly a decade and owes more than $42 million plus interest to a regional transit fund.

    The state controller's office audited the city after finding "significant differences between the city’s financial transaction reports to the controller’s office and its audited financial statements over two fiscal years." Auditors found the city's accounting controls had "widespread deficiencies that rendered them effectively nonexistent."

    Except for Coe, each of the remaining six defendants has been charged with six counts of embezzlement of public funds. Dillon, Egger and Moorjani have also been charged with one count each of conflict of interest and face up to 16 years in prison.

    Kapanicas and Aylward are also charged with 24 counts of misappropriation of public funds and two counts of conspiracy. They face up to 26 years in prison. Coe has been charged with two counts of misappropriation of public funds and one count of conspiracy. He faces up to five years in prison.

    Bail for Kapanicas, Aylward, Aklufi, Dillon, Moorjani and Egger was set at $5 million each. Coe’s bail is $100,000, officials said.

    ALSO

    Pipeline company indicted in Santa Barbara County oil spill

    LAUSD assistant principal arrested for alleged sexual misconduct with student

    Black Lives Matter activists criticize arrests of LAPD critics at Police Commission meetings

    For breaking news in California, follow VeronicaRochaLA on Twitter.

    UPDATES:

    7:45 p.m.: This story was updated with additional quotes and information from prosecutors
    Privacy Policy
    Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times

    Crime

    Ross Levinsohn named new publisher and CEO of Los Angeles Times as top editors ousted
    Trump, who once backed withdrawal from Afghanistan, will try to sell the nation on deeper involvement
    Solar eclipse gridlock: It was so busy in Madras, Ore., they called in the National Guard

    • 6429 posts
    21
    August 21, 2017 4:31:03 PM PDT
    The Corrupt Town in True Detective Is Based on Vernon, and ...
    www.laweekly.com/news/the-corrupt-town-in-true-detective-is-based-on-vernon-and-vernon-couldnt-be-happier-5709057

    Jun 22, 2015 ... Vernon doesn't mind being portrayed as a corrupt industrial town, as long as it means ... UCLA Women's Soccer v Oregon & UCLA Men's Soccer v California ... The city has also brought in a developer to build a new 45-unit .
    • 6429 posts
    22
    August 21, 2017 4:39:14 PM PDT
    Web
    Images
    Video
    News
    More
    Anytime

    The state is watching these 6 cities closely for financial fraud...
    www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-state-auditor-program-20161023-snap-story.html

    Oct 23, 2016 ... In many ways, the struggling city in southeast Los Angeles County had its ... Last year, the California state auditor launched a new program to crack down on ... The corruption scandal in Bell, which led to the conviction of seven city ... Most of the six cities were ranked poorly in some or all of the categories
    • 6429 posts
    23
    August 21, 2017 5:41:07 PM PDT
    Hallelujah, Last year, the California state auditor launched a new program to crack down on ... The corruption scandal in Bell, which led to the conviction of seven city...

    My people filed fraud claims under QUI TAM and was told the Auditor could not step in unless State employees were involved, We will have to talk to her again because there are at least state Engineers involved in getting the Millions to the County upper management . as I explained to her! You Go Girl!
    • 6429 posts
    24
    August 21, 2017 5:44:20 PM PDT
    One officer of the law asked" why is a public works manager billing and receiving state Millions? " ( Kevin Mallen )
    • 4977 posts
    25
    August 21, 2017 6:44:03 PM PDT
    This thread was supposed to be about how the State of California discharged its liability in regards to local levees, same as the Federal government has done.
    Cleanup obviously doesn't understand the question, doesn't know the information, or is an opportunist. Regardless, my question wasn't answered and the thread hijacked.

    My apologies to the good people of Yuba Foothills. I only wanted to understand how the state dumped on the taxpayers of Yuba Sutter.
    • 4977 posts
    26
    August 21, 2017 6:45:38 PM PDT
    Cleanup continues to make unsubstantiated allegations and claims that by his own admission over 60 legal firms refused involvement.

    Please ponder that fact.
    • 6429 posts
    27
    August 21, 2017 7:15:57 PM PDT
    Just as the state found out regarding who pays for the Yuba River South Bank Levee in the trial, it is who ever is using the levee and that is the state because in 1942 the state took over the levee for their flood controls.
    People, these people and their supporters have ruined Yuba county for personnel greed, just as all those other officials who were sentenced to prison were greedy and I know from my close working with federal and upper state, this corruption has to be stopped , violators jailed, and we have to be very careful in our elections and not permit these people to get near our government again.
    • 6429 posts
    28
    August 21, 2017 7:37:00 PM PDT
    yuba county used the supposed sand and seepage berms as justification to get three (At least) different grants in reimbursement . Under the state false claims act, 8547 et seq , we filed with state auditor as directed by our laws, was accepted and a case # assigned and we then filed again the new attorney General for the investigation to implement the award for bringing these documented waste records in state and federal funds to light before the state of california.

    • 4977 posts
    29
    August 21, 2017 7:57:47 PM PDT

    >cleanup<Just as the state found out regarding who pays for the Yuba River South Bank Levee in the trial, it is who ever is using the levee and that is the state because in 1942 the state took over the levee.....

    Really cleanup? The State condemned the levees and dumped liability on the County. You are spreading ignorance and falsehoods.
    I think had you been elected you might have a better understanding. Since you were not, and the hatred and revenge comes through loud and clear, you refuse to see facts unless they are your own conclusions.
    • 4977 posts
    30
    August 21, 2017 8:31:40 PM PDT
    Here is an interesting yet lengthy read about the State, Feds, and local involvement in general.
    http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3571

    Here's another long, boring, informative explanation of liability.
    http://ajud.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ajud.assembly.ca.gov/files/reports/1005%20California_Katrina_Hearing.pdf

    Bottom line is if we have another flood the state may or may not be held liable for damages.
    • 6429 posts
    31
    August 22, 2017 12:14:15 PM PDT
    "Really cleanup? The State condemned the levees and dumped liability on the County."

    Could you please show a document that says the state dumped liability on the counties?
    • 4977 posts
    32
    August 22, 2017 12:47:07 PM PDT
    I was first told by a local authority and then liability is discussed in the links posted above. It came out of the State being on the hook for the Paterno suit. The State has tried to discharge some (if not all) liability to local jurisdictions like the Federal has done.
    I could not find the specific answers I wanted which is why I posted this topic.
    I didn't want to get into a battle over levee construction, Yuba County and TRLIA, or your claims. I wanted to have a civil discussion about State vs. local liability and how the State has moved to put more on the shoulders of locals in several areas, not just Y-S.
    I hope to ask either one of the Supervisors, Kevin Mallen, or YCWA folks one of these days.
    • 6429 posts
    33
    August 22, 2017 1:13:53 PM PDT
    The liability of the Yuba River South Bank Levee is on the State of California because the state was found guilty of the Levee failure because they failed to upgrade the Levee after they took over the levee and placed it in their Levee System, where it remains today.

    • 4977 posts
    34
    August 22, 2017 2:23:57 PM PDT
    You may or may not be right; the documents I listed above say that might not be entirely true.

    It's funny you say the state is responsible after bashing the Yuba County Supervisors for taking over liability of the levees to allow for building of Plumas Lake.

    Now you've contradicted yourself.
    • 6429 posts
    35
    August 23, 2017 10:29:59 PM PDT
    The Sacramento Bee posted in their paper a few years ago the story of teachers about to be layed off. The story said only Five Teachers and One administrator would be layed off along with fifty one Unfilled Positions.

    I have brought to light the same type of Unfilled, Funded positions in Yuba county Government being deleted along with a amount of Real Humans and Posters like YUBAYAK said the excess money went to the Courts , then the Courts paid it back to the County, but I could get no answer as to where the money went then, which brings to mind where did this start and how much excessive Millions of Dollars has the State and County Officials taken without citizens Knowledge via Department Heads , County Administrators, State upper officials, School administrators turning in Budgets Loaded with unfilled , Funded, positions?
    • 4977 posts
    36
    August 24, 2017 3:08:52 PM PDT
    Thanks for your contribution about how the liability for levees has changed.

    Just can't help yourself, can you?
    • 6429 posts
    37
    September 16, 2017 8:53:04 AM PDT
    "It's funny you say the state is responsible after bashing the Yuba County Supervisors for taking over liability of the levees to allow for building of Plumas Lake. "

    The liability of the Yuba River South Bank Levee is on the State of California because the state was found guilty of the Levee failure because they failed to upgrade the Levee after they took over the levee and placed it in their Levee System, where it remains today.