frontpgWATER LAW SUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL LAW SUIT)

On June 4, 2015, the City of Riverside, under newly christened City Attorney Gary Geuss filed suit against the State of California with regards to the issue of having to comply with a 24% cut in usage.  The city asked the state in the suit to include it in a program that lets Northern California entities get away with just 4% cuts because they are taking their water from surface sources, like rivers that are going to dump their contents in the sea if not snatched. The State ignored the City’s request. Riverside gets its water from underground sources, not the surface, and that’s a critical difference to the state.  The problem stems from the Board’s definition of a “reliable water source;” namely, the designation refers only to surface water and not groundwater, or water located underneath the earth’s surface.  So the City filed the above lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court to stop the State Water Resources Control Board from commanding our City to comply.

In its complaint, Riverside asked the state why a “groundwater-sufficient entity” couldn’t be inserted and was told, “It would simply be too difficult to include groundwater in the 4% tier, but provided no evidence why including groundwater suppliers would be any more difficult than including surface water suppliers. No other reason was giving for listening to one class of water suppliers, but ignoring the other class of water suppliers.”  KPCC said Riverside’s lawsuit was the largest objection registered to date against the state’s water policy. Water districts are just now beginning to implement government directives which aim to implement Governor Jerry Brown’s order that water usage be cut 25% among statewide nonagricultural users. The cuts range between 8% and 36%, compared to comparable time periods in 2013.  Riverside wants a temporary restraining order and injunction to avoid $10,000-a-day fines for noncompliance with an emergency order.

Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination.  Simpson tells City Attorney Geuss that he forgot the “winning” argument against the State of California!  The residents have a “contractual right” to water in the City of Riverside, therefore the State of California has no right to impose water restrictions!  The right to water in the City of Riverside is tied to every resident who owns property, for perpetuity.  What is important to note in this law suit is that the City of Riverside admits owning water rights pre-1914, which releases us from the constraints of the Governor Moonbeams imaginary drought emergency.  What people need to realize we are in the year of “El Nino” and we will receive a boat load of water this year, more than we can handle.  Unfortunately, the State of California cannot run a business, how can we allow them to run the State?

SCOTTVIDEOTWOCLICK THIS LINK TO HEAR WHAT CITY ATTORNEY GARY GEUSS FORGOT TO PLACE IN THE LAW SUIT TO PROTECT RESIDENTS WATER RIGHTS, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTS “CONTRACTUAL RIGHT” TO THAT WATER.

Simpson states that water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians according to the California State Water Resources Control Board. California’s waters cannot be owned by individuals, groups, businesses, or governmental agencies. But permits, licenses, and registrations give individuals and others the right to beneficially use reasonable amounts of water. That’s paraphrased from the California State Constitution. The precise language states that the people of the State of California own the water resources of the State for their use and enjoyment.

scottvideooneCLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WATER EXPERT SCOTT SIMPSON TALK ABOUT RESIDENTS RIGHT TO WATER

Water Expert Scott Simpson then states that the State of California is the care taker of the water, in charge of improving the quality and making more water available for their use. You are not selling us water you are you provide us with the service of transportation for our use and enjoyment.  So why has the State of California unfortunately betrayed the taxpayers?  Some terms come to mind, “greed,” “incompetence,” “over construction,” and “ineptness.”  Where’s the accountability?  Well folks that will never transpire.

stateofcaqa     stateofcaqatwo

CLICK TO VIEW IMAGES OR CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SITE WHICH SIMPSON WAS REFERRING TO

Riverside Public Utilities deputy general manager Kevin Milligan said the city wants the water board to include groundwater in its definition of a reliable water supply.  “The only difference is surface water you can see and groundwater you can’t,” Milligan told the paper.  “We have our own wells and our own water resources,” Riverside Public Utilities spokesperson Heather Raymond told the Los Angeles Times. “No matter how much we save it has zero effect on the state water supply.”  Riverside gets its water from groundwater basins it controls and has a four-year supply on hand. That’s the minimum necessary to be included in the 4% tier. Over the years, the city has drilled wells, captured storm water, invested in a water treatment plant and spent millions on a recycled water infrastructure, Riverside Public Utilities Deputy General Manager Kevin Milligan told the Riverside Press-Enterprise.

The question then became, the City of Riverside doesn’t really have to comply with the State Resources Control Board, since our water rights are pre-1914, and the Control Board was set up thereafter.  Further, the residents who own property in the City of Riverside have a “contractual right” to the that water, as a result of those water rights given to us by a court of law prior to 1914.  The city says it hasn’t imported water from the Colorado River or the State Water Project since 2008.  According to the Courthouse News Service, the city’s complaint says, “(A)ny water that Riverside does not extract will sit in the basin, and cannot be extracted or used by others. Riverside is truly ‘water independent.’ ”  This is something to remember folks, because the City of Riverside is mandated by law to harvest “x” amount of water.  Water cannot be conserved and sit in the ground.  If it does, it can go beyond the acceptable water table, and cause damage and weakness to surrounding infrastructure.

garyguessjokers

Riverside City Attorney Gary Geuss, with double indemnity prior clown behind him, a tough circus act to follow!

Has anybody seen the moniker around town stating “I Own It?”  What does that mean?  It means that if you are a homeowner in the City of Riverside you actually have a “contractual right” to water and you therefore own the “public utilities.”  You may ask, “Why does the City state we are “shareholders” as a result of owning property attached to a home, and then be treated as we are not?”  The straight answer is that the Riverside Water Board represents City interest, therefore not the best interest of the taxpayers is considered.  The only way to protect your rights, your right to water etc. is to form a “taxpayer advocacy” group which will lobby for our rights as homeowners and property owners.

We haven’t even addressed those residents who own rights to the Gage Canal water etc., they can pretty much run there water down the street if they want. There is no drought restriction for them! The point is that are city forefathers made sure there would not be a problem with the access of this important commodity, and this was insured years ago, and pre-1914.  Therefore, are rights to that groundwater should be fought for with a vengeance.  It is as the squirrel who prepared themselves for the winter and stored his food supply early.  Another squirrel comes about, who didn’t prepare, and wants to take it away.  That is what the State of California is attempting to do.

RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMITS WE ARE PRE-1914 BY ADVERTISING PROMO.. CUSTOMER OWNED SINCE 1895.

img040two  enlarge1895ownership

What City of Riverside residents must know about the drought misinformation, is that the residents have a “contractual right” to water prior to 1914. Which means that we as a City do not have to comply with the laws regarding drought mandated by Governor Edmund G. Brown, also known as “Moonbeam.”  According to Riverside Public Utilities own advertisement, we have been publicly and customer owned since 1895!  You therefore are not receiving correct information.  Every homeowner in the City of Riverside has a contractual right to water from the publicly owned Bunker Hill Basin in San Bernardino.  The next big question Riversidian’s should be asking is why we as a publicly owned utility should have to advertise to ourselves?  The Riverside Public Utilities spends multitudes of money to promote, which is technically, a public monopoly with reference to utilities.  WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ADVERTISE?  Is it to divert monies to those special clients in the advertising business?  Can this be interpreted as a gift of public funds?  It’s all wrong and should not be done!  Further, the ratepayers demand the utility overages refunded back!  Don’t attempt to try to craft new language and use are reserves to purchase another $40 million dollar building.

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN….

1907-riv-randa-railway-002-600

RIVERSIDE & ARLINGTON RAILWAY CO. (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”.  WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Comments
  1. Kevin Dawson says:

    Great posting! Because we are water independent and don’t import water, a gallon saved is not a gallon we don’t have to import or buy from the state water project. I think the real motivation for the city sueing the state, is if we cut water use by the mandated 28%, it will cause a corresponding drop of the measure A water utility transfer to the General fund! We all remember measure A? The city said if we didn’t approve measure A, it would cause the city to cut funding for police, fire, library, parks, and senior services. I guess the city really needs the money.
    As a causal observer, I kind of feel the city has suffered from the problem of too much money. Let me explain. When you don’t have enough, and money is precious, you are much, much more careful and fugal. When you have more than enough, you don’t feel the need to so careful. Here in Riverside, we allowed our City Attorney’s office to go unaudited for years, covering up the fact the the City Attorney was hiring outside legal services without Charter required council approval and without any contracts! I don’t believe this practice was limited to the CA, because there is evidence the CFO and RPU did the same thing.
    You would think such a serious legal and financial issue would be of interest to the city council but at each time we presented the issue, we were ignored. At a finance committee meeting, chairman councilman Nancy Hart, put her hand in front of my face, acused me of trying to have a “gotcha moment” and adjourned the meeting. If the finance committee isn’t the appropriate place to discuss a serious finance issue, what are we to think?
    I can give several other examples of frivolous spending, and it’s mainly on legal actions, but my point is, if the city didn’t feel so flush with money, then maybe there would be more careful consideration and monitoring of expenditures.
    I think the main job of our city council, should be that of fiscal oversight. Sadly, over the years I think there was a concerted effort to train the council away from that responsibility and it’s going to take quite an effort for the council to regain control.

    Some of the new rules, recently enacted are welcome baby steps in the right direction but it’s not enough. I believe there were conscious violations of law by our past city attorney and others. A recent, limited in scope audit confirmed there was serious improprieties in the CA finances. We need a full audit and examination of CA finances for the entire tenure of Greg Priamos, and if there was unlawful activity, he needs to be held accountable.

    Call or write to your councilman. Tell him we need a full audit and accounting. Tell him we need the council to be more in control and thoughtful with city finances. We need to see spending issues discussed and voted upon in public, rather than in closed session. Staff reports on proposed purchases need to include greater details (like on comparitve live expectancies of materials) or sent back. (A classic technique to control decision makers, is to limit the information staff provides)

    Let’s tell the Mayor to knock off with frivolous, non-sensical money wasting actions. Pay to receive an award as the Worlds Most Intelligent City? So we ended up paying to send the Mayor Loveridge and his posse to NY to receive this, and then we paid to send Rusty with his posse to pass it on to the next recipient? What a scam.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s