Calistoga Alternative News
For Enquiring Calistoga Minds
- >>>>> WE WILL REPORT ON THE SERIOUS NATURE OF CALISTOGA DRINKING WATER TTHM PROBLEM SOON <<<<<
- >>>>> THE CALISTOGA GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY MACHINE <<<<<
- >>>>> ARTICLE TAKEN DOWN FOR EDITING / REBUTTAL - WILL BE REPOSTED AT A FURTURE DATE <<<<<
- >>>>> CHECK BACK OFTEN. WHEN REPOSTED, WE WILL POST NOTICE HERE <<<<<
April 11, 2015
On March 11 2015, a citation was issued to
Michael Kirns, Public Works Director,
for Calistoga City Drinking Water
On April 21 2015 CUSTOMERS NOTIFIED
April 18 - 22, 2015
We Would Like
The Generous Donors For Their Contributions To Our Efforts To Bring “Sunshine Disinfectant” To Calistoga.
p.s. Thank You Calistoga Tribune For Waking Up Our Neighbors
Help Us Grow
We now have a Certified Reporter and several Vetted Columnists. They will be reporting on EXPLOSIVE area issues. Such as, Water/Sewer, Timber Harvest Plans and River Use and Misuse. We will include historical information and how it affects the current issues.
If you feel that these issues need to be exposed to the Sunshine Disinfectant, Please DONATE to this effort.
May 11, 2015
IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS
We Will Be Reporting On
Explosive Information Regarding The Drinking Water Problem (THM).
This not as harmless as we are led to believe. We will explore causes and how to protect ourselves.
for disinfection byproducts called total trihalomethanes (TTHM) in the vicinity of your service meter
See THM Letter City Sent
This chemical is produced by Chlorination Disinfectant at the City of Napa's , Ed Barwick municipal water treatment Plant.
This water is from The State Water Project which uses turbid delta sourced water from Barker Slough.
The NBA pipeline enters our waste water plant at Dunaweal , where the City re-chlorinates the same drinking water before pumping it into the Calistoga water mains and to the Mt. Washington 1.5 million gallon tank.
This has been happening since 2005 when they were fined for the same infraction.
In searching the internet we found the following:
This water soluble solvent is considered to be hazardous to your health.
“What are the health effects of TTHMs?
According to a University of Florida report, exposure to TTHMs may pose an increased risk of cancer.
According to Rebekah Grossman, two TTHMs, chloroform and dibromochloromethane, are carcinogens; and another THM, bromodi- chloromethane, has been identified as a mutagen, which alters DNA.
Mutagens are considered to affect the genetics of future generations in addi- tion to being carcinogenic. A California study indicates that TTHMs may be responsible for reproductive problems and miscarriage. The study found a miscarriage rate of 15.7 percent for women who drank five or more glasses of cold water containing more than 0.075 mg/l TTHM, compared to a miscarriage rate of 9.5 percent for women with low TTHM exposure. In addition to these risks, TTHMs are linked to bladder cancer, heart, lungs, kidney, liver, and central nervous system damage”.
When we searched water filters that would filter TTHNs we found:
The Best Water Filters for Trihalomethanes Removal
Trihalomethanes (THMs) are among the most dangerous chemical compounds that find their way into the water supply. THM contamination is very common, because these substances are a byproduct formed when chlorine is added to drinking water. THMs are known to be carcinogens, and are closely associated with the occurrence of several different types of cancer. Additionally, these substances cause problems with the functioning of the nervous system, the liver, and the kidneys. Ingestion of these substances can also contribute to miscarriages.
Even though the dangers of THMs are well-documented and the substance is present in the vast majority of drinking water, many home water filtration systems are not designed to remove these substances from the water supply. For example, Brita water filters and PUR water filters do not remove THMs from water. Both Aquasana and Amway water filters are proven to be effective at removing more than 99% of THMs from water. Kenmore and Culligan water filters also filter out large percentages of these substances.
Big Berkey Water Filters
Is The Napa River Contaminated?
Calistoga - Central Park Walkway
Calistoga, CA, April 7, 2015
Calistoga Picayune News recently received a phone call from a local resident that witnessed two visiting Dogs swimming in the Napa River. Both dogs became severely ill and required medical attention by a veterinarian in Santa Rosa.
The reach of the river was from Central Park River access walkway, to Berry Street.
The Picayune directed them to a testing laboratory where they received a sterile sealed sample container which they took to the River and collected and returned to the lab for analysis .
The 100 ml sample showed 2,419.2 Coliform Present and 79.8 e.Coli.
The signed report, concluded that as of 3/30/2015, Napa River water was deemed Contaminated.
The Calistoga Picayune News, Environmental Staff Reporter, Kurt Larrecou, advised The Napa County Department of Public Health as of April 7, that was a public health threat and the River should have signage in English and Spanish advising both people and pets not to come in contact with Napa River Water in Calistoga.
The Picayune has information that this contamination may be coming from the aging sewer collection system on Washington Street since 1990.
The human health hazards from fecal coliform may indicate waterborne pathogenic diseases that include ear infections, dysentery, typhoid fever, viral and bacterial gastroenteritis and hepatitis A.
We were also alerted that a young boy who was in the river water 3 days ago came down with an illness that the doctor could not immediately identify. The family was given a copy of the report for future analysis.
April 11, 2015
The location Napa River, Calistoga,150 feet downstream from river walk-way.
The Farmers Market was in full swing with the band playing as these two boys played splash your back!
The Picayune endorses the "Napa River Watch" an Action Committee founded by Kurt Larrecou
The fact is, clean streams are not just for fish, but for the all inclusive ecological matrix, that sustain's our environment for both mankind and nature to co-exist...
The Napa Valley, is a world class environment that cannot sustain the impacts of unbridled growth that the current politicians of all it's cities and county agency's see as must needed accommodations on their immediate horizon.
This is not feasible with concerns of available resources that are currently non-existent to cope with this massive infill with regard to potable water, sewage disposal and impaired storm runoff.
The actual preservation of this agricultural valley hinges on all of us that are concerned to contact, EPA Region 9 Administer, Jared Blumenfeld.
The United States, EPA Administer is Gina Mcarthy
The EPA has just issued a press release to shape there action to preserve water quality and agricultural exemptions in the next 90 days.
The concerned citizens, of Napa County, must now reply to the EPA in a proactive summation of each of there concerns for the inclusion in the new open document above .
The State of California has turned the very agencies of enforcement for Federal Clean Water Act into self serving, hapless vultures, waiting for the carnage of deceit to become odoriferous in anticipation of the Federal EPA will then take actions.
The San Francisco Bay cannot sustain the continuing infill of Napa Valley which sends a plume of effluent toxins daily into the San Pablo Bay.
The worst portion of the Napa Valley government, and the one that must be fixed now, is the City of Calistoga , who's planning department is morally corrupt to the current industry standards of the Environmental Quality Act, The Uniform Building Code, The State of California Health Code, and all Federal Regulations.
There is no way that the Napa River can sustain itself to be an asset to the residents and farms that are dependent on the very essence of clean water that infiltrates the aquifers of there wells and there allowed intake for frost protection and irrigation.
The Napa River is impaired.
The State of California Water Resource Control Board has continued to mitigate, degradation of the Napa River, to the Federal EPA as well studied controlled acceptance.
This is not acceptable as water and must be corrected by the EPA by starting to initiate there own representative's to challenge the State of California's findings by there own scientist's.
"The Napa River" like Lake Tahoe must be made "Blue"...
The City of Calistoga and the other users are now paying to move the Delta intake pipe from Barker Slough (Click Here for Background) to a deeper portion of the Delta as a result of the Slough became impaired with copious amounts of algae.
The delta smelt live on the algae as a food source for their maturation, as they were being poisoned by the chemicals, industrial pollution, insecticides, and almost 50 waste-water plants that all contribute a matrix of sanitary sewer outfalls to the Delta's water.
The City of Calistoga imports this “Delta Water” to the "Ed Barwick" Water Treatment Plant in Jamison Canyon east of the City of Napa where it is mechanically treated and filtered, chlorinated and wheeled in a 12 inch steel pipe to Calistoga's Dunaweal waste-water Treatment plant which again chlorinates the water inside the pipe and is pressurized and delivered to the Cities existing water system by two electric 50 hp. centrifugal pumps.
The current Calistoga Public Works Director, Mike Kirns stated that this NBA water can only be pressure delivered, outside the City Limits 1/4 mile up Bennett Lane where the City has installed an equalization valve. Bennett Lane heading north ends as Evey Road and terminates at the city gate to Kimball Dam. The water produced at the City's Kimball water treatment plant from Lake Ghisolfo was a high quality water from multiple historic springs and sheet runoff from winter rains that formed the headwaters of the Napa River.
Some History surrounding the “Lake Ghisolfo name
To get a full picture the City of Calistoga’s Kimball drinking water source it is instructive to understand and appreciate the genesis of how the City came by its water rights and how “Lake Ghisolfo” came into existence. A close look at the City’s reservoir parcel’s chain of title history traces the genesis of what is now turning into a hotly contested battle between the City of Calistoga and Debbie O’Gorman, who claims (thanks to the acts of the City’s own attorneys) that the water the City is and has been using from Kimball Creek is being used without her express permission as required by the City’s reservoir parcel’s deed restriction that prevent it from accessing the waters of Kimball Creek.
County Recorder records indicate that the reservoir parcel (APN 017-060-010) water rights were sold to O’Gorman’s Great Grandfather, Albert L. Tubbs in 1882 by Pliney Reed and J.L. Wright. (J.L. Wright being the legal guardian of the Florence Reed’s surviving children who had inherited her one half interest upon her death)
The first deed recorded April 30, 1883 (CLICK HERE to see (long load time)) Book 33 of Deeds at page 395, gave Tubbs -
“the privilege of diverting the waters that flow down the creek through the Wright or Poulson barrier from their natural course and conveying them by a pipe placed beneath the surface of the ground to the residence now being erected by him for the period of one year from the date hereof.”; and, ---
“I hereby bind myself my heirs, executors and administrators upon the payment of the further sum of two hundred dollars, or instead of the two hundred dollars the paid Tubbs may give me a one half inch tap at some point near my house, from which I may be permitted to draw water for domestic family use and for my stock, but not for irrigation or for sale, so long as the supply will permit – to convey to the said A. L. Tubbs, by good and sufficient deed all the rights and privileges hereinbefore mentioned.”
The second deed recorded May 2, 1883 (CLICK HERE to see (long load time)) page 400 stated “Witnessed that the party of the first part for and in consideration the sum of one dollar to him in hand paid and the enhanced value of my property arising from the valuable improvements now being made by the party of the second part, on the property purchased by him from John Hoover, has and does hereby grant bargain sell release and confirm unto said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns the right to divert said water from its natural course, and lay down and maintain at his pleasure water pipe to convey said water to his residence for domestic use and irrigation.”
One might wonder why Reed did this, but the answer is simple: Kimball Creek ran dry in the summer months and Tubbs had a pipe running from all year flowing springs located high above on the Mt. St. Helena watershed, which he also owned at the same time. From Pliney Reed’s point of view, better to have water available all year long through a “½” tap” rather than no water from springtime through the onslaught of winter. From Tubbs point of view he now had the Kimball Creek water for use on all of his then-owned land through which Kimball Creek flowed.
This land included all subsequently subdivided parcels that were sold off which had these deeds in their respective chains of title in common. The City, Markham Vineyards, Chateau Montelena, Rombauer and Rancho Alto Vineyards parcels all have one or more of these deeds included in their title history, meaning that none of these parcels have had pre 1914 riparian rights since 1883 when the right to take water from Kimball Creek was purchased by Tubbs. Since that time, the Tubbs family and then O’Gorman have been paying property taxes on the springs and easements since they came into existence and the O’Gorman parcel is still free to enjoy the only riparian right between their spring (Headwater of the Napa River) and what is now O’Gorman’s Home Place.
Because the water rights that were riparian to the land had been sold to Tubbs, the riparian nature of what is now the City’s reservoir parcel ceased to exist. These water rights once alienated from the land became the property of the Tubbs that were handed down via inheritance through the Tubbs family subsequent heirs. To realize the scope and contiguous nature of the Tubbs property holdings, one only has to look at the Napa County Map approved by the Napa County Board of Supervisors on January 21, 1895. The map is framed and hangs in the Napa County Recorder’s Office. The uniqueness of the map is that is identifies each parcel owner of record as of that date by name, placed on the parcel map itself, giving the viewer a snapshot in time of the County’s ownership records graphically displayed.
Albert Tubbs died in 1895, however the estate probate action was not settled until 1905, having been interrupted and delayed by the passing of one of the heirs during the pendency of the probate process. Although the probate was handled by the San Francisco Superior Court, a certified copy of the final administrator’s deed was recorded by the Napa County Recorder. The estate finally being settled, Chapin Tubbs by 1919, became the sole owner of the Calistoga holdings of A.L. Tubbs, which included the present day castle that is Chateau Montelana.
To be continued ----
Next edition: How the City and Tubbs clashed over water rights beginning in 1938
Recent History of The
CALISTOGA WATER WARS
Mr. John O’Hagan
State Water Rights Enforcement Section
State Water Resources Control Board
Representing: Debbie O’Gorman
Discussing the Kimball Creek water rights issues.
This is presented by Calistoga Picayune news, to further clarify and document the start of the current Calistoga water Wars.
In the past Mr. Reynolds has found, difficult, limited and if not impossible access to local media.
We at Calistoga Picayune News offer to Mr. Reynolds and other interest parties access to this site and Radio Calistoga 1610 AM, to discuss Calistoga’s Troubled Waters - Calistoga Water Wars.
The letter was sent 2 months before the lawsuit was filed. The date was misstated. The Certified receipt shows January 6, 2009.
Mr. John O’Hagen
Water Rights Enforcement Section
State Water Resources Control Board
By Kurt Larrecou, Environmental, Staff Reporter
The court denied the City motion, during oral argument yesterday, Mr. Visick , was attempting to argue a demurrer (challenge to mechanical sufficiency of the complaint) via a motion to transfer the case to Napa, which was an improper attempt to introduce evidence not allowed to be inserted in the type of motion Mr. Visick had filed.
Visick had sought sanctions in the amount of$28,900.00 to be awarded against Mr. Leighton for filing the lawsuit in the wrong court on the
ground that the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB) should be dismissed. That type of challenge should have been brought by demurrer, not by a motion to change venue.
Presumably the City will now have to shoulder the financial responsibility for the Burke Williams mistake. All in all a good deal for Visick and the Burke Williams law firm he works for: If they win it cost the city nothing; If they lose the City pays the $28,900.00 to Leighton for the mistake.
Either way, win or lose, Burke Williams and the Burke Williams law firm he works for: gets paid and the City tax payers get the bill even if Burke Williams makes a mistake.
By Kurt Larrecou, Environmental, Staff Reporter
Started May 5th 2008, as Matt Hickerson was checking the the cessation of water flow of the Napa
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was to declare a "statewide drought declaration" less that a month later.
The water rights of the, "pass through water," for all dam's in California including Hetch Hetchy is determined by the State Water Boards to ensure the streams are viable for for fish, wildlife, river canopy, and residents.
Matt's significant other, Debbie O'Gorman, had the century old water rights that she and Matt determined should be used to enable the Napa River to be flowing.
They called their long time friend Grant Reynolds (read back ground) to help intercede with the powers that be to make it happen.
Grant Reynolds, a long time fly fisherman, was no stranger to water fraud as it had bitten him in Mammoth, California, as recent rampant development dried up the stream he lived adjacent too.
Grant took the water issue to then Calistoga city manager Jim McCann who told him to pound salt, thus a suit was filed to begin the court battle.
The investigation found numerous water-users under the radar of the State Water Board and the California Department of Public Health for both domestic use, frost protection, and irrigation frauds that ultimately led to McCann leaving the town's employment and his long time friend Richard Spitler was hired to carry the torch of defiance by Calistoga's multiple attorneys for well over a million of dollars to date and still going.
"This the amount of water Grant Reynolds has fought for the city of Calistoga to release"
Water Resources Control Board on June 13, 2014. Because the complaint as-filed sought no non-monetary relief no claim against the state was necessary. The matter is now pending before the Sacramento Superior court. (Case No. 34-2014-00164846)
The attorney representing Debbie O'Gorman in this action is Brian C. Leighton ("I'm a bulldog," Leighton said. "I don't give up.”) of Clovis, California (read here and here and here Have patience-Slow loading-WORTH WAITING FOR)
Recent discovery now indicates that the State Water Resources Control Board was negligent and the plaintiff will seek leave of the court to amend the complaint to allege actionable causes which do allow for monetary damages. Because money damages claims must conform to the notice requirements pertaining to state agencies, this claim is being filed after 6 months but prior to one year of the claim accruing on November 21, 2013.
Based upon these circumstances, but also not limited to others, this claim should be allowed to proceed if in fact it is found to have been filed late.
20. The annual acre foot amount of surface water diverted from Kimball Creek by the City divided by the total annual acre feet amount of water sold by the City's Water Enterprise Fund resulting in a pro-rata percentage of the City's annual gross income derived from the Water Enterprise Fund’s Annual income.
The California State Water Resources Control Board negligently issued the City’s original permit No. 5502 (A9376) on March 4, 1940 without first reviewing or including the Tubbs water transfer agreement or the Tubbs indenture within its files before issuance, referencing instead that the rights of access and right of way issues were “negotiations in progress (right of eminent domain).” (Ref: Permit check list 3/1/1940 & permit No. 5502)
The California State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) filed an
Administrative Civil Liability Complaint against the City of Calistoga on March 1, 2001 alleging interalia:
“The City has also expanded its service area beyond the place of use authorized by Licenses 9615 and
9616, and Permit 20395, and is delivering water to this expanded area from Kimball Reservoir.
During the inspection, staff was informed by Mr. Steve Anderson, the Water Systems Superintendent,
that approximately 60 customers are outside the service area, and staff was shown the extent of
service northwest of the City on Highway 128. This location was found to be about 0.8 miles outside
the authorized place of use for the City's water projects.”
On March 29, 2001 the City paid a $5,000.00 fine and applied to the SWRCB for an increase to its “place of use” (“POU”) sufficient to serve what would ultimately be included as an additional 115 water services. The City’s first attempt based upon an engineering error was rejected by the SWRCB when the City first alleged that its POU map had been erroneously drawn and requested that the “error be corrected administratively “nunc pro tunc.”
On May 9, 2001, the City negotiated a 6-year land lease with Markham Vineyards for six acres of land located adjacent to the City’s reservoir property. The lease included a water supply clause, which would have been for AG use. Because this parcel was adjacent to Markham’s larger parcel, the water obtained under its lease agreement was used to irrigate the larger parcel as well.
On September 27, 2001, the City submitted a copy of the Tubbs Indenture, describing the document as:
“A water agreement dated November 3, 1939, between the City and Chapin F. Tubbs regarding water use on the section of water main between the City limits And Kimball Dam.”
Telling the SWRCB:
“As previously stated, it is the City’s opinion that these documents demonstrate that the City has been serving water outside of the city limits prior to the issuance of License 9615 and 9618 and Permit 20395. Therefore the map at the State Water Resources Control Board has on file showing the City’s water service area as the City limits is in error and needs to be corrected.”
As illustrated below, the above statement is false.
Also included within the letter was the following specific request:
“As we discussed at the meeting of September 13th we would also request that the State review the conflicting bypass dialogue regarding our Permit 20395 and License 9615 and 9616.”
Given the wording of the above-described documentation, the SWRCB knew or should have known that no users, other than Tubbs/O’Gorman had a right to hook up to the City’s water main because the Indenture provided for only one 2” connection that had been in continuous use by the Tubbs since September 25, 1940, thereby making any claim that the Indenture allowed for an additional 115 users located outside the City’s POU invalid and unauthorized. (See Tubbs Indenture @ 6 below)
“Sixth, agree that the parties of the first part shall have the perpetual right to connect to said pipeline of the parties of the second part herein mentioned, for which this grant of right of way is granted, at any place on said right of way convenient to the parties of the first part, and use and take such amount of water therefrom as they may require for use upon the lands then owned by the parties of the first part, said parties of the first part to pay for said water used by them at a rate not to exceed (10c) per thousand gallons; or said parties of the first part may elect to pay for said water so used by them at the lowest established water rate affected by and/or paid by said party of the second part by way of its users within the City limits. All water shall be metered by a meter not exceeding the capacity of a two inch standard meter, furnished and maintained by the party of the second part;”
On January 15, 2002, the City submitted its application for an expanded POU to the SWRCB. During subsequent communications, the City justified its unlicensed diversion and use by stating to the SWRCB that it was bound to do so because of an old water agreement, which is the same agreement sent to the SWRCB on September 27, 2001, which makes no provision binding upon the City to provide water to anyone but the Tubbs.
Included within the application’s proposed expanded POU were several additional wineries that had been using water for agricultural purposes [“AG use” (11/3/1939 Indenture)] which was then and is still, inconsistent with the City’s SWRCB’s licenses that limit the city’s water use to “municipal purposes” only. (AG use excluded) The color-coded map submitted with the application admitted that the City had been illegally provided these vineyard parcels with Ag water for many years in violation of the City license terms.
The California Department of Fish & Game and NOAA filed protests in order to kill the City’s request to expand its POU. Each of these protests was a complete submission with no further information required. At this point in time the City and SWRCB confronted three barriers that would potentially harm the City’s efforts to “legally” sell water outside their POU and for AG use:
The DFG protest;
The NOAA protest; and
The fact that the Indenture language relied upon by the City to sell water for AG was not present, since the Indenture allowed for only one (1) two inch (2”) water hookup to the City’s water main between Kimball Dam and City limits, which had been in continuous use by the Tubbs since 1940.
Notwithstanding the completeness of the DFG and NOAA protests, on September 17, 2002, the SWRCB drafted letters to DFG and NOAA, giving them 30-days to provide additional information to their protest documents, with the caveat that:
“As a result of a compliance inspection, it came to the Division's attention, that 60 existing homes that the City has been servicing for over 30 years, were left off of the place of use maps for the four applications. Therefore, the City filed Petitions to Change the place of use to match the City's service area for all four applications. Whereas NMFS's letter expresses concerns regarding Kimball Creek Reservoir, it does not address impacts caused solely by the addition of the 60 existing homes to the City's service area. The Division is, therefore, assuming that NMFS is only formally protesting the Cyrus Creek Reservoir extension of time and NMFS protest, as such, is accepted. If, however, it is NMFS intention to protest the Petitions for Change, please provide, within 30 days, a statement of facts documenting impacts that will occur as a result of the addition of the existing homes to the service area. If the Division does not receive a statement of fact, the Division will assume it is NMFS intention to only protest the Petition for Extension of Time and will proceed accordingly.”
The letter signed by Dr. Stacy Li was placed in the SWRCB’s file however neither DFG nor NMFS received a copy of this letter, leaving the SWRCB free to dismiss the protests of an expanded City POU on the basis that neither agency had responded within the 30-day window allowed by the SWRCB letter.
During the pendency of the City’s application for an expanded POU, and although it had already been provided with a copy of the Tubbs Indenture by the City years earlier, the SWRCB requested that the City provide a copy of the water contract to justify the increase to the City’s existing POU.
The City informed the SWRCB that it was unable to locate the “old water agreement,” while at the same time the City was negotiating water supply contracts with the wineries based on the same the agreement that had been sent to the SWRCB years earlier on September 27, 2001 by the City.
Between the time that the original POU violation was discovered and the date that the SWRCB issued its first order granting the City’s petition for an expanded POU, the City negotiated no fewer than six (6) water contracts with wineries. (Chateau Montelana, Rombauer Vineyards, Ranch Alto Vineyards, Pecota Vineyard, Premo, and Markham Vineyards) All of these agreements were based upon the original November 3, 1939 Tubbs - City Indenture, which the City supplied to SWRCB on September 27, 2001.
SWRCB thereafter negligently suggested to the City that it could supply it with water billings to prove that it had been selling water to parties outside its POU in lieu of the “old water agreement.”
Had the SWRCB either reviewed its own files or required the City to substantiate its right to take water by using the Tubbs Indenture it had in its possession, or obtain the chain of title history to the City’s reservoir parcel of which it had been made aware, the SWRCB would have realized (as the Napa Court did) that the Tubbs Indenture did run with the land, but provided no basis for the City to sell water to users located outside the City’s original POU defined by the City limits in 1939 other than Tubbs with one 2” pipeline.
While the City was negotiating its contract with Chateau Montelana Vineyard at the end of May 2995, SWRCB on June 10, 2005 wrote to the City advising of the following circumstances:
The City responded to SWRCB on the 16th , to Ross Swinerton, advising that it wished to proceed and also attached copies of the September 17, 2001 letters purportedly sent to DFG and NMFS as backup exhibits that could be used as a basis to dismiss those agencies protests.
On the same day the City instructed its outside consulting engineer to prepare POU maps, excerpt below:
SWRCB issued its first order expanding the City’s POU on March 30, 2007. Number 4 of the order stated:
On August 30, 2007, SWRCB issued an amended order which deleted the above-stated provision from the original.
As a direct result of the SWRCB’s negligence in failing to verify the City’s claim to water rights, the SWRCB increased the geographical size of the City’s POU and deprived O’Gorman of the ability to engage in water sales to the vineyards to which only she had a right to sell water.
After several revisions the Summit POU map was originally submitted on September 29, 2005, was finally accepted on or about July 13, 2006.
SWRCB has been provided with judicially noticeable transcripts and documents indicating that in a prior court action, (Napa Case No. 26-26468) the court opined “That the Tubbs agreement does not run with the land.” Because the effect of the Tubbs Agreement, the deed restrictions inherited by O’Gorman prohibiting the City from taking water from its parcel had been held in abeyance since 1939. The Napa court’s dismissal of this earlier action based on its perception that the contract did not run with the land, formed the basis for O’Gorman’s request SWRCB to transfer title to the City’s licenses to her pursuant to Water Code 1016.
Editor: More - Calistoga Water Wars
Reference, Grand Jury Report
THE CALISTOGA GOVERNMENT
Previous civic experience left us discouraged
I wanted to respond to your recent editorial "To the few who are active, I applaud you" (Aug. 7).
If you attended city council meetings during the time the huge projects were approved, (more-Read Comments)
Calistoga Picayune News
PERSON OF THE WEEK
Mr. Wolfe used his executive position to allow the city by his signature alone, a pass on the accepted practice of tertiary water to be sprayed on the city owned irrigation fields for soil absorption and atmospheric evaporation.
The City was allowed to flood their fields and have the treated waste water flow direct to the Napa River...
GUBERISM (click for definition)
When "Calistogans" asked the city government (planning department, public works department, city council), and the Chamber of Commerce (video documentation at end of article)," Do we have the infrastructure, (e.g.. water and sewer) for the carrying capacity of these new resorts (e.g. Silver Rose, Enchanted Forest, Indian Springs) "THE ANSWER WAS A RESOUNDING - YES"!!
When reviewing the information below, one must come to the conclusion that the above agencies either, did not communicate with each other, mistakenly misled the public, miss spoke, deliberately misled, or to quote a Gruberism "the public was too stupid you know what's good for them".
To give you a preview of what's contained in the documents below:
- Moreover, the frequency of the Discharger straining or exhausting its storage capacity appears to be increasing. From 1999 through 2010, the Discharger notified the Regional Water Board only once, in 2007, that it was running out of storage capacity and would potentially need to bypass, causing runoff to the Napa River.
Calistoga Picayune News.com
To Enlarge Click Letter
Read Complete Order
Cease and Desist Order No. R2-2014-0043 City of Calistoga
The following is an excerpt from a presentation by Chris Canning (for the chamber of Commerce, not as a person running for mayor) for the Silver Rose an enchanted forest development. This was presented at Château Calistoga. Full presentation below.
Enchanted resort rumors dispelled -- update with rumors confirmed
Full presentation below.
Calistoga Chamber Economic Landscape. Impact of Silver Rose Resort and Enchanted Resort.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
City of Calistoga is dumping water from Kimball Dam
Kurt Larrecou - Enviormental Editor
The City of Calistoga is dumping water from Kimball Dam to prevent over-topping the Dam, from the torrential rains they started on the Wednesday before the Storm.
The water has flooded the road that accesses the Water Treatment Plant.
Napa River at Calistoga Pioneer Park
"Napa River at Calistoga Pioneer Park, Jeff Parady, of Pope Valley inspecting fish portal conveyance that serves also as a walkway in April of 2010."
Napa River at Pioneer Park 12 11 14
Thanks' for Looking...