A San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by Oceano Nursery owner Bill Bookout against numerous agencies and businesses, partly because the judge believed the evidence Bookout presented was insufficient.
Judge Martin Tangeman handed down his 14-page ruling Tuesday, finding in favor of the defendants — Caltrans, Oceano Community Services District, Union Pacific Railroad, Pismo/Oceano Vegetable Exchange and San Luis Obispo County — and against Bookout’s claims that those agencies had caused flooding at his nursery.
Bookout wanted to see the issue go to a jury trial, but the judge ruled otherwise.
On Wednesday morning, Bookout said he plans to appeal the ruling in what he sees as a fight for Oceano, so the community doesn’t have to pay for others’ mistakes.
“This is a community problem ... that has put my business out of business,” said Bookout, who also is a member of the board of the Oceano Community Services District, one of the agencies he sued. “There’s no way I can reopen my business with the flooding.”
Oceano Nursery is on Highway 1 at the corners of 13th and Paso Robles streets, where water pools during major storms, often flooding the business.
“It’s time that the county needs to be held accountable, and Caltrans, they will be held accountable, too,” Bookout added.
Bookout filed the lawsuit in 2006, alleging that the five entities had contributed to and caused continual flooding problems at his nursery over the years, which forced him to close the nursery’s doors.
The lawsuit, in part, claimed that over the years, the county has diverted storm water runoff to Highway 1, Caltrans has raised the level of the highway and OCSD has failed to properly maintain its drainage systems, which have all caused the nursery to flood repeatedly.
In early July, Tangeman oversaw a 10-day trial in the case that was triggered by a motion filed by Bookout’s attorneys for a judgment against the defendants for damages to the nursery.
Tangeman ruled that the evidence presented at trial failed to support a basis for liability on the part of the various agencies.
“In each of these cases, the court finds that the evidence is too speculative,” Tangeman wrote.
Tangeman said he also ruled in favor of the defendants because he believes the flooding problem stems from a much earlier date than what Bookout has contended.
“Although plaintiff strenuously and repeatedly argues that his property was not flooded prior to 2004, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming,” Tangeman wrote.
During last month’s trial, Bookout settled with the Pismo/Oceano Vegetable Exchange for an undisclosed amount of money. Bookout declined to comment on that settlement.
August 7, 2008
Email a friend
Printer friendly
Bill Bookout wrote on Jan 20, 2009 8:24 PM:
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 culverts 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. "