Calistoga Picayune News

Sunshine Is The Best Disinfectant _ Let The Sunshine In


What The "O'Gorman Water Suit Appeal" Is Really About!

I can tell you in seven words how to understand what this suit is really about.

WATCH THE MOVIE "CHINATOWN" starring Jack Nicholson.


In the Western United States, water flows uphill to money.
Glen Sanders (from Cadillac Desert)

Editor note - the following are excerpts from the new O'Gorman Appeal Suit, filed 11/30/2017. For those of you that think you know what this is all about by reading the two local newspapers and statements made by our "City Fathers" then I say" The Emperor Has No Clothes"! EDUCATE YOUR SELF. Don't Just Be A Parrot! This "con" has going on long enough.

The City of Calistoga had no rights to water until1939, when it entered into an agreement with O’Gorman’s grandfather who owned said water rights.
Tubbs either purchased land with direct riparian water rights, or he appropriated riparian rights from land owners through various deeds whereby Tubbs would own the water but permit the land owner a small pipeline for the land owner’s domestic use but not for resale
That parcel’s water rights together with easements for delivery and restriction for diversion of water had been sold to Tubbs in 1883, with the subsequent owners –including the Respondent City being foreclosed from taking water for irrigation* or for sale because of Tubbs’ water easements and rights he had retained.
The City had been selling water outside its place of use ** (in violation of the 1939 agreement which restricted the City to sell only within its place of use, i.e., within the City limits) and the City was entering into contracts with wineries outside the City limits.
...... correct copy of a letter from the City to the Water Board indicating 115 customers located outside the City’s 1939 POU. (PlaceOfUse).
......Shortly thereafter, the City in January of 2002, petitioned the Water Board for a change seeking authorization to increase the size of its place of use in violations of the provisions of the November 3, 1939 WRA (WaterRightsAgrament).
Editor comment:
* Selling water for grape growers and wineries @
10 cent per 1000 gallons.** see City loses Water Rights to a spring fed Creek 2004. This is the "Catalyst of Current Calistoga Corruption"
** Attempt to extend the City Limits boundry for new developments in the Bennet Lane area and supply them with Kimball dam water.
You need to read or at the very least SKIM (scroll down to the highlighted area) the actual law suit below. Place your curser near the bottom and click on the icon that looks like an eye loop.


City loses Water Rights to a spring fed Creek 2004. This is the "Catalyst of Current Calistoga Corruption"


Kurt Larrecou
Calistoga Picayune News
Environmental Editor / Staff Reporter
January 28.2018

This blatant water license loss occurred under the Jim McCann City Management , which was only one of his many, improper schemes that resulted in his sudden resignation.This was a crucial loss of Historic, Spring Fed, Cyrus Creek water rights that the city bought in 1918, for $40,000 which that served the Town of Calistoga  before the Kimball Dam was constructed 1939 .

McCann was interested in providing more Kimball Dam water to out of City Limit homes, vineyards and wineries illegally. The city borrowed 2.5 million dollars form the USDA under the pretense that the existing 1939 Kimball Main was leaking and it would be taken out of service. There was a 2002-2003 Napa Grand Jury report in which New Water Rates for then Rate Payers by the same firm, Bartles &Wells that just raised our Water Rates for a consulting fee of $45,000.
See findings from State Water Resources Control Board Below
(Click To Enlarge)
Stacks Image 2296
thex Created with Sketch.
Stacks Image 2355
thex Created with Sketch.
Stacks Image 2359
thex Created with Sketch.
Stacks Image 2370
thex Created with Sketch.
Grant Reynolds Responds To Calistoga Tribune 12-15-2013 Article

Dear Editor,

I read your recent front-page December 13 article about the 20M water lawsuit that mentioned my name with interest. I appreciated your narrative of events; however I would like to correct a couple of facts as stated as well as provide some insight to your readers:

You say (page 6 @ 5
th paragraph) that my 2009 lawsuit was about water rights. This is absolutely untrue. My lawsuit was based upon an assignment of the rights associated to the 1939 Tubbs water contract that according to the City’s position taken in court, expired by operation of law upon the death of Debbie O’Gorman’s grandmother, Merritt Reid Tubbs. I filed the action to recover damages for a breach of that contract only. There was never any intention on my part to deprive the City of its water rights because I believed as the City had stated in writing to Debbie O’Gorman that the Tubbs agreement “ran with the land” and “is valid and binding.” (Like a deed)

My recovery effort was sought on the grounds that the City had exceeded the amount of water it had contracted with Tubbs for in 1939, which I claimed was limited by a dam height of 44 feet and a storage capacity of 138 acre feet. The City without notice to O’Gorman’s grandparents, her mother or her, has raised the dam to 75 feet high with a storage capacity of 315 acre feet. In some years the City has used more than 500 acre feet of Kimball Creek water according to their own records. My lawsuit was concerned with that and the fact that by not keeping the terms of the original contract, the City’s operation of its Kimball dam had harmed the Steelhead on the Upper Napa River by taking more water than originally envisioned by the Tubbs agreement. I believed that if the City could have been held to the original terms of the Tubbs agreement that limited their take of water to 138 acre feet that the Steelhead would have enough water to thrive again.

Secondly, your article states at the top paragraph of column two:

“When the city developed and adapted a bypass plan to release enough water to meet both the city’s needs and that of the fish, the court ruled Reynolds’ suit as moot in January 2011.”

While technically correct, you are omitting the fact that the City’s bypass plan called for shutting off all bypass water on September 1st of each year. On August 26, 2012, National Marine Fisheries conducted a snorkel survey at the Evey Bridge pool certifying the presence of fish life. On September 1st the City in accordance with its bypass plan (designed to meet the needs of the fish) shut off all water flow, killing all of the fish that had been alive five days before. Complaints were filed. Enter the State Water Resources Control Board and the behavior that the City is now mandated to follow, which gives the fish several acre feet of water each year for as long as the dam stands. The City’s bypass plan was great for the people and an annual death sentence for the fish every September; hence the lawsuit could not be mooted by a bypass plan that called for a yearly annihilation of the fish. The City’s position has led to one of the present pending appeals.

In your third to the last paragraph you quote Mr. Spitler as saying:

“The courts each step of the way have said ‘’you have no lawsuit against the city, that [agreement] was 70 years ago.”

Thanks go to the astuteness of the City’s attorneys for drawing attention to the fact that the contract no longer exists as a matter of law, which means that the water rights to the City’s reservoir property have reverted back to Debbie O’Gorman via the recorded property deeds dating back to 1883. One of the deeds to the City’s reservoir parcel includes a restriction on the City land to O’Gorman’s favor that prevents the City from diverting Kimball Creek water for irrigation or for sale. (This was the reason for the Tubbs Agreement to begin with i.e. to hold the restrictions in abeyance) My lawsuit’s dismissal on the ground that the contract did not run with the land was a Godsend for Debbie because the City through 2006 had always stated in writing that the Tubbs water Agreement “ran with the land” in order to avoid the type of litigation it is facing now. Both she through the years and I relied on those City representations. It was not until 5 months after the defense against me won the day on January 27, 2011 and decisively lost the war FOR THE CITY in the duration of one court hearing that I realized the significance of what had actually occurred: The City’s attorneys had thrown away any claim their client may have had for Kimball Creek water. SPITLER NOW ADMITS THE CITY PAID THEIR ATTORNEYS MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS BLUNDER!

With regard to Mr. Spitler’s comments about the courts deciding for the City, perhaps he should have told you that Judge Guadagne was paid 2.1 million from the Measure A Pork Barrel for his two acres of contaminated unbuildable land that was the bottom of the Napa River or that he was looking for a free cleanup of the contamination at taxpayer expense even before (in 1997) Measure A was passed by the voters in 1998. In July 1998, after the voters approved Measure his attorney characterized the voter approvals as “The pigs flew in March” in court transcripts concerning Judge Guadagne’s contamination violation. So it is no wonder that the court agreed with the City “every step of the way” if for no other reason but to prevent me from holding he and his cronies accountable for his 2.1 million dollar gift of public funds in my Measure A lawsuit, which he also dismissed to protect the pirates that run your government.

You should believe the findings of your 2012/2013 Napa County Grand Jury and the Measure A Financial Oversight Committee that substantiates these facts instead of listening to the guilty elected parties who have and continue to engage in blatant corruption in your County.

Very truly yours,

Grant Reynolds


Stacks Image 3022

O'Gorman v. California State Water Resources Control Board
Case No. 34-2015-00183738


September 22, 2015

Danniel Kientz
Calistoga Picayune News
Editor / Publisher


This case was filed on September 1 2015!
(22 Days ago!)

Why are the media completely ignoring this suit?

Is it because of the following accusations contained in the suit?


"Conspiracy"
"Aided and abetted"
"Fraudulently"
"False representation"
"Injurious and clandestine"
"City was forbidden"
"Fine"
"Purloined"
"City illegally"
"Illegal"
"Violation of license"
"Scheme"

Stacks Image 3024
image1 copy

O'Gorman v. California State Water Resources Control Board - Case No. 34-2015-00183738

September 15, 2015
Danniel Kientz
Calistoga Picayune News
Editor / Publisher


Brian Leighton, on behalf
of Debbie O'Gorman, filed a lawsuit in Sacramento to show that the State of California Water Resources Control Board looked the other way on the Kimball Water city give away of Debbie O'Gorman's inherited water rights.

The lawsuit
shows what is a myriad of frauds that is a result of a well orchestrated plan between the Water Board and the City of Calistoga to provide water to local winery's.

The lawsuit hopes to reenumerate O'Gorman for the open taking of her long established family's water as a result of State of California not enforcing her legal entitlement.

Additional Informantion
Brian Leighton
Debbie O'Gorman
Kimball Water (
here) (amount of water one of the city suits was over) (popular press slanted reports re: Kimball suits)

Please take the time to read the actual filed case.

O'Gorman v. California State Water Resources Control Board - Case No. 34-2015-00183738



Editor's Note

We, non - attorneys have difficulties reading legal documents. 

Our minds go blank trying to focus and follow the basic information contained in the document like this one.

This is our attempt to assist the reader to focus on the facts.

Try reading this as a highlighted novel.

In this filed suit, you will find these words, directed toward towards the,

CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (Defendent)

"Conspiracy"
"Aided and abetted"
"Fraudulently"
"False representation"
"Injurious and clandestine"
"City was forbidden"
"Fine"
"Purloined"
"City illegally"
"Illegal"
"Violation of license"
"Scheme"

ATTENTION
View
Highlighted PDF in
OS X Safari
Windows Chrome
IPhone–iBooks
Firefox

Like Us On FaceBook

We Would Like to
Thank

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

Stacks Image 4584

>>>>>BREAKING NEWS<<<<<

Grant Reynolds Responds To Calistoga Tribune 12-15-2013 Article

Dear Editor,

I read your recent front-page December 13 article about the 20M water lawsuit that mentioned my name with interest. I appreciated your narrative of events; however I would like to correct a couple of facts as stated as well as provide some insight to your readers:

You say (page 6 @ 5
th paragraph) that my 2009 lawsuit was about water rights. This is absolutely untrue. My lawsuit was based upon an assignment of the rights associated to the 1939 Tubbs water contract that according to the City’s position taken in court, expired by operation of law upon the death of Debbie O’Gorman’s grandmother, Merritt Reid Tubbs. I filed the action to recover damages for a breach of that contract only. There was never any intention on my part to deprive the City of its water rights because I believed as the City had stated in writing to Debbie O’Gorman that the Tubbs agreement “ran with the land” and “is valid and binding.” (Like a deed)

My recovery effort was sought on the grounds that the City had exceeded the amount of water it had contracted with Tubbs for in 1939, which I claimed was limited by a dam height of 44 feet and a storage capacity of 138 acre feet. The City without notice to O’Gorman’s grandparents, her mother or her, has raised the dam to 75 feet high with a storage capacity of 315 acre feet. In some years the City has used more than 500 acre feet of Kimball Creek water according to their own records. My lawsuit was concerned with that and the fact that by not keeping the terms of the original contract, the City’s operation of its Kimball dam had harmed the Steelhead on the Upper Napa River by taking more water than originally envisioned by the Tubbs agreement. I believed that if the City could have been held to the original terms of the Tubbs agreement that limited their take of water to 138 acre feet that the Steelhead would have enough water to thrive again.

Secondly, your article states at the top paragraph of column two:

“When the city developed and adapted a bypass plan to release enough water to meet both the city’s needs and that of the fish, the court ruled Reynolds’ suit as moot in January 2011.”

While technically correct, you are omitting the fact that the City’s bypass plan called for shutting off all bypass water on September 1st of each year. On August 26, 2012, National Marine Fisheries conducted a snorkel survey at the Evey Bridge pool certifying the presence of fish life. On September 1st the City in accordance with its bypass plan (designed to meet the needs of the fish) shut off all water flow, killing all of the fish that had been alive five days before. Complaints were filed. Enter the State Water Resources Control Board and the behavior that the City is now mandated to follow, which gives the fish several acre feet of water each year for as long as the dam stands. The City’s bypass plan was great for the people and an annual death sentence for the fish every September; hence the lawsuit could not be mooted by a bypass plan that called for a yearly annihilation of the fish. The City’s position has led to one of the present pending appeals.

In your third to the last paragraph you quote Mr. Spitler as saying:

“The courts each step of the way have said ‘’you have no lawsuit against the city, that [agreement] was 70 years ago.”

Thanks go to the astuteness of the City’s attorneys for drawing attention to the fact that the contract no longer exists as a matter of law, which means that the water rights to the City’s reservoir property have reverted back to Debbie O’Gorman via the recorded property deeds dating back to 1883. One of the deeds to the City’s reservoir parcel includes a restriction on the City land to O’Gorman’s favor that prevents the City from diverting Kimball Creek water for irrigation or for sale. (This was the reason for the Tubbs Agreement to begin with i.e. to hold the restrictions in abeyance) My lawsuit’s dismissal on the ground that the contract did not run with the land was a Godsend for Debbie because the City through 2006 had always stated in writing that the Tubbs water Agreement “ran with the land” in order to avoid the type of litigation it is facing now. Both she through the years and I relied on those City representations. It was not until 5 months after the defense against me won the day on January 27, 2011 and decisively lost the war FOR THE CITY in the duration of one court hearing that I realized the significance of what had actually occurred: The City’s attorneys had thrown away any claim their client may have had for Kimball Creek water. SPITLER NOW ADMITS THE CITY PAID THEIR ATTORNEYS MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS BLUNDER!

With regard to Mr. Spitler’s comments about the courts deciding for the City, perhaps he should have told you that Judge Guadagne was paid 2.1 million from the Measure A Pork Barrel for his two acres of contaminated unbuildable land that was the bottom of the Napa River or that he was looking for a free cleanup of the contamination at taxpayer expense even before (in 1997) Measure A was passed by the voters in 1998. In July 1998, after the voters approved Measure his attorney characterized the voter approvals as “The pigs flew in March” in court transcripts concerning Judge Guadagne’s contamination violation. So it is no wonder that the court agreed with the City “every step of the way” if for no other reason but to prevent me from holding he and his cronies accountable for his 2.1 million dollar gift of public funds in my Measure A lawsuit, which he also dismissed to protect the pirates that run your government.

You should believe the findings of your 2012/2013 Napa County Grand Jury and the Measure A Financial Oversight Committee that substantiates these facts instead of listening to the guilty elected parties who have and continue to engage in blatant corruption in your County.

Very truly yours,

Grant Reynolds


>>>>>BREAKING NEWS<<<<<

City loses Water Rights to a spring fed Creek 2004. This is the "Catalyst of Current Calistoga Corruption"

Kurt Larrecou
Calistoga Picayune News
Environmental Editor / Staff Reporter
January 28.2018

This blatant water license loss occurred under the Jim McCann City Management , which was only one of his many, improper schemes that resulted in his sudden resignation.This was a crucial loss of Historic, Spring Fed, Cyrus Creek water rights that the city bought in 1918, for $40,000 which that served the Town of Calistoga  before the Kimball Dam was constructed 1939 .

McCann was interested in providing more Kimball Dam water to out of City Limit homes, vineyards and wineries illegally. The city borrowed 2.5 million dollars form the USDA under the pretense that the existing 1939 Kimball Main was leaking and it would be taken out of service. There was a 2002-2003 Napa Grand Jury report in which New Water Rates for then Rate Payers by the same firm, Bartles &Wells that just raised our Water Rates for a consulting fee of $45,000.


SideBarComments