Today is the anniversary of the 86 flood.

From the TRLIA website.

December 2011
Date: December 9, 2011
To: Interested Parties
From: Paul Brunner, P.E., Executive Director, Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority
Subject: Addendum to the Yuba River Levee Repair Project Phase I and II (2004) and Phase 4 (2006) Adopted
Initial Studies/ Mitigated Negative Declarations
On August 3, 2004, the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (TRLIA) distributed to public agencies and
the public the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Yuba River Levee Repair Project – Phase
I and Phase II (2004 IS/MND). All comments received on the 2004 IS/MND were considered and incorporated
into the Final 2004 IS/MND. The Final 2004 IS/MND was accompanied by a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan. Adoption of the 2004 IS/MND and approval of the project by TRLIA took place on August 24,
2004. The Draft and Final 2004 IS/MND were prepared on behalf of TRLIA in accordance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and the State CEQA Guidelines.
On June 9, 2006, TRLIA distributed to public agencies and the public the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Yuba River Levee Repair Project – Phase 4 (2006 IS/MND). All comments received on the
2006 IS/MND were considered and incorporated into the Final 2006 IS/MND. The Final 2006 IS/MND was
accompanied by a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Adoption of the 2006 IS/MND and approval of the
project by TRLIA took place on July 28, 2006. The Draft and Final 2006 IS/MND were prepared on behalf of
TRLIA in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Statutes and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Minor changes to the project have occurred since adoption of the 2004 and 2006 IS/MNDs. Changes in a project
may be addressed by a supplement to the negative declaration or an addendum, depending on whether such
changes result in new or substantially more severe changes in environmental impacts. Since adoption of the 2004
and 2006 IS/MNDs, there is evidence of erosion on the landside of the levee that has resulted in a scarp formation
just upstream of State Route (SR) 70 to Shad Road. As a result, an approximate 320-foot long segment of the
levee must be improved. Although the details of this improvement were not included in the 2004 and 2006
IS/MNDs, the project goals and objectives to provide flood protection to the area have not changed and the
project area for the improvements was thoroughly analyzed and evaluated in the 2004 and 2006 IS/MNDs. The
potential impact of the proposed levee landside improvements are analyzed in this Addendum. TRLIA, lead
agency for the project under CEQA, has determined that these levee landside improvements constitute minor
technical changes or additions to the 2004 and 2006 IS/MNDs and has prepared this Addendum in accordance
with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
This Addendum may be reviewed at TRLIA’s Web site, http://www.trlia.org/. For questions regarding the
Addendum and documents referenced in the IS/MND, contact Paul Brunner, P.E., Executive Director, TRLIA.
Questions can be sent to Paul Brunner, P.E., Executive Director, TRLIA, 1114 Yuba Street, Suite 218,
Marysville, CA 95901, fax (530) 749-6990, or by e-mail: pbrunner@co.yuba.ca.us.
Sincerely,
Paul G. Brunner, P.E.
Executive Director
Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority

No mention of the sand berms .

Quoting from February 16, 2012 8:01:55 PM PST  

"then, I have met my goal of warning citizens regarding the Sand berms not done.
I will post no more on "What If" having Copied all relevant material, I will ask the Forum manageme3nt to Remove "What If" Only. 
Rex Archer"

(You wre right Javadad)

You are certainly a man of your word Mr. Archer...........

2grands beat me to the punch with his post which quoted what was supposedly your LAST post under WHAT IF................

Another reason for the good people of Yuba County not to believe what you say or trust you Mr Archer. It is scary to think where this county would be if you had been elected supervisor, or if Terry Hansen had broken the law and allowed you to run for Sheriff. I am very glad she complied with election law and didn't give you an application.

People like you with a vendetta and an agenda of anti progress. and anti devlopment are part of the problem in Yuba County. It is a good thing there are a lot of people in this County with a positive vision of the future.

No mention of the sand berms is the topic that i have decided to bring up. Women change their minds, as you two should know, and I can change mine to especially to bring up major facts.

t is scary to think where this county would be if you had been elected supervisor, or if Terry Hansen had broken the law and allowed you to run for Sheriff.

Whoa there! Terry Hansen Broke the State constitution laws by upholding a State sheriffs association statute from 1989, a meager statute over ruling the constitution!

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 12. No amendment to the Constitution, and no statute proposed
to the electors by the Legislature or by initiative, that names any
individual to hold any office, or names or identifies any private
corporation to perform any function or to have any power or duty, may
be submitted to the electors or have any effect.

This is the law! Terry Hansen, who at first agreed with me that I could run For sheriff under the constitution, then the county counsel, Montgomery, told her to follow the statute, and she did.

The beginning of Corruption in yuba county upper management elected and appointed.

"Then county counsel told her to follow the statute, and she did."

Darn facts and the law getting in the way again!
We all knew you couldn't stop Rex, javadad nailed it again. Thought you were getting this removed? Meow at you again...

Take it to court if it is so wrong and corrupt. You know you would lose which is why you complain here instead. Aren't you tired of being on the short end of the stick?

2Grands, could you for once address the point? Read the constitution auricle above and then comment on that please. Growll .....

no, of course you can not, sorry for bringing it up.

many attorneys from out of the area have said they could win easily, but I can not pay what they want'

address the point? The topic was about levees and levee funding but it always turns in to poor Rex and how Yuba County is out to get him. Practice what you preach.
An attorney that could easily win would take the case, period. I don't believe you.
You state the County followed the statute (which means they followed the current law) and you claim it was wrong. Are you supposed to get special treatment above the law? The State Attorney General would take the case if it were as easy to win as you claim.
You have no case. You have no proof. There is no investigation. There is no wrongdoing. No recognized authority back up a darn thing you claim.
You said you would stop and have this topic removed and you failed at that too. Haven't you had enough? Why not do something good for a change - even if it is for yourself.

Mr. Archer, are you really a woman? You say that woman change their minds, as you have done. Or perhaps you simply are sexist among your other attributes?

Wow, so in addition to being an expert with regards to levees you are also a Constitutional Law expert. Attorneys will always tell you what you want to hear, name just one attorney you've talked to that agrees with you. Perhaps though as with the issue of the levees you are delusional and have convinced yourself that a multitude of people agree with you.

There is no need to prove you wrong with regards to anything you've posted since others have already done so, including 2grands and javadad (among others).

Terry Hansen was indeed correct in her actions, your problem is that you don't agree with her.

Do have a degree in Civil Engineering? Any type of Law Degree? No you say? Well in that case you are no subject expert by any leap of the imagination where levees or Constitutional law are concerned. Anything you post is nothing more than an uneducated opinion.

Enjoy your day Mr. Archer, looks to be windy out there.

Whoa there! Terry Hansen Broke the State constitution laws by upholding a State sheriffs association statute from 1989, a meager statute over ruling the constitution!

Your earlier comment, which I posted here further shows your lack of understanding of the law as the Sheriffs Association did't create or vote on the Statute. Put simply the Legislature votes on the bill and the Governor signs it into law

February 17, 2012 3:18:10 PM PST
2grands posts on 17 February 2012:
Quote Report
"Today is the anniversary of the 86 flood."
Correction: The 1986 Flood was February 20.

BVResident Says:
"You state the County followed the statute (which means they followed the current law "and you claim it was wrong. "

Under our Constitution, the Article 2 section 12 is good law, a statute can not conflict with the Constitutional article.
bv Resident Says:
There is no need to prove you wrong with regards to anything you've posted since others have already done so, including 2grands and javadad (among others).

The statute can not overrule the Constitutional article.

( You post just like Javadad )

BVR says:
"Do have a degree in Civil Engineering? Any type of Law Degree? No you say? Well in that case you are no subject expert by any leap of the imagination where levees or Constitutional law are concerned. Anything you post is nothing more than an uneducated opinion."

Three County employed Civil Engineers sent letters to DWR requesting Reimbursement for sand berms constructed between Shad Road and West of the Highway 70 Bridge, When they Knew their was no sand berms Constructed There.

In 2006, Assemblyman Rick Keene told me the State Sheriffs association Lobby had brought the statute wording to the Legislature, which is why I mentioned that.

The Attorney General told me to retain an attorney regarding the statutes constitutionality.

Sounds like you have friends in high places, why didn't you retain a competent attorney as the AG allegedly suggested.

Perhaps I should rephrase..........

What qualifies you as a subject matter expert with regards to the levees and the quality and scope of the work performed?

What qualifies you to determined whether statute passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor is Constitutional or not? The fact you don't like the statute because it disqualifies you isn't enough.

I wish javadad was still posting, he seems like a good level headed person who could back up what he says.

I would also enjoy meeting some of the others who posted here in the past.

You certainly are an interesting person I will give you that.

Any REASONABLE person can see that no official has or will back up Rex on any of the various subjects presented here.
Just because Rex repeats something over and over doesn't change the facts. The truth never changes. No state investigation is going on, no state agency wants to work with Rex; the pattern is very clear. He couldn't even get this topic removed as he claimed would be done - or stay away which we all knew the answer ahead of time. The ego is too big to admit defeat. The problem isn't Yuba County, TRLIA, DWR. USACE, Sheriff's Department, Elections Officials, Assembly members, Senators, State of California, people in Plumas Lake or people on Yuba Foothills.

Thank you both for your views. Rex

I post just like javadad? That is funny since you said the same about 2grands, yet none of us has met or knows each-other, Maybe it appears we all post alike because you repeat the same old tired material and we all feel the same way. Or maybe we're all related or the same person, or maybe we are all Dan Logue or another of the officials you despise. Maybe are all part of the great Yuba County conspiracy against you...................I

No offense but you are either posting JAVADAD talking points, or he is using your screen name! No one could post javadads rhetoric the same way, I believe.

Paul Brunner Says"

2006 IS/MNDs, there is evidence of erosion on the landside of the levee that has resulted in a scarp formation
just upstream of State Route (SR) 70 to Shad Road.

I reported on this thread a while back that TRLIA workers were dumping sacks of sand in the land side of the levee and they told me the goats had eaten the scarp section out. it was a short distance nothing like Brunner states here, but anything to take attention away from the non constructed sand berms.

No offense taken, though what you fail to consider the talking ate the same because the rhetoric, your talking points, remain the same. I dont know javadad and he doesnt have access to my account. Change your rhetoric and I am certain the talking points would change. Not that it matters since I will now step away and see of this thread is deleted or how long you can keep quoet, whoch isnt long.

Issue 1.
Yuba County officials sent requests for reimbursement for sand berms constructed.

State reimbursed yuba county

Yuba county did not construct sand berms.

Issue 2.

Article 2 section 12, " no individual or group can be named to hold office in California.

State statute names a law enforcement officer to hold the office of Sheriff.

Issue 3.

Issue 1.
Yuba County officials sent requests for reimbursement for sand berms constructed.

State reimbursed yuba county
Yuba county did not construct sand berms.

Answer 1A.: Every agency contacted by Rex Archer told him to pound sand.
Levees certified, monies paid, every agency and every person that can see knows about the levee situation.

Issue 2.
Article 2 section 12, " no individual or group can be named to hold office in California.
State statute names a law enforcement officer to hold the office of Sheriff.

Answer 2 A: County of Yuba follows the law after consulting with County Counsel. Rex is told to go away - again.

Darn facts and truth getting in the way again Rex. Hire an attorney and put your money where you mouth is if you are so confident. Meow....just like like a cat toying with the prey.......

Answer 1b (2 GRANDS)

Yuba county did not construct sand berms between shad road and highway 70.

Answer 2b 2grands

County Counsel advised clerk to follow Legislated Statute instead of constitutional artical 2 section 12, which she was following.

bad kitty, stop playing with that poor little mouse.

Talking Point 1, Answer 1C - Neither Yuba County nor TRLIA has ever claimed they constructed a Sand Berm between HWY 70 and the Shad Pad Road, hence no flase claim was submitted. Infact as posted on the TRLIA web and reposted here by you Mr. Archer TRLIA is now seeking to additional work which it has determined is no required in that area.

Talking Point 2

Answer 2C - The Yuba County Clerk is doing her elected duty and following the current State Law. As 2grands duly noted if you feel the Statute is Unconstitutional.

Any other "talking points" you would like to discuss Mr. Archer?

I said I was going to stay away but as 2grands stated..............meow.

Like a bad comedian you continue to recycle the same old material Mr. Archer.

Get some new, or shall I say valid, talking points.

I'm going to try staying away for a while, but like the cat..................

"Talking Point 1, Answer 1C - Neither Yuba County nor TRLIA has ever claimed they constructed a Sand Berm between HWY 70 and the Shad Pad Road, hence no false claim was submitted"

Answer : posted on this thread is a grant agreement between YUba county and DWR, that states TRLIA constructed sand berms between Shad road and west of highway 70.

Answer 2c :

County clerk Knowingly upheld a legislated law that is inferior to state constitution law.

Just because Rex Archer posted something doesn't make it fact or 100% complete truth. Selective editing on your part has been demonstrated on this forum too. All those people, experts, documents and money and everyone is wrong but you. See a pattern yet?

Take it to court and let us know how that works out for you. Get your attorney to win these easy cases. We all know that no one at the AG's office told you a case "was easy to win". Just like the state investigation you started, it isn't happening. Stop spreading b.s.
No free pass.

Thought you were getting this thread removed and you wouldn't post any longer? Is this another failure?

Glad to see you posting all those facts!

1927 posts

655

February 13, 2012 12:46:20 PM PST
Lets try again for the slow ones shall we? Proof #1 posted on this thread is a document from DWR to me showing TRLIA states they constructed sand berms between Shad road and West of high way 70.

Proof #2 posted on this thread is a picture of trees and houses where TRLIA states sand berms are.

Proof #3 posted on this thread is a letter from a Yuba county official to DWR , requesting reimbursement for TRLIA spending local money constructing sand berms.

Proof #4 Not posted here but supplied to the state as evidence is a spread sheet showing DWR reimbursed TRLIA in the amount of multi millions of dollars for TRLIA's request.

now, it seems you three are hung up on getting a statement from Brunner, Reinhardt, Bendorf, or other officials involved in the issue, stating they did OR did not construct sand berms, is all you will settle for.

Hogwash, the three of you have ulterior motives in your refusal to accept the truth.
Sad,

1928 posts

19

June 25, 2011 8:34:44 PM PDT
In an exchange of E-Mails the past month between Me and DWR Engineers in sacramento, under the freedom of information act, I was sent documents showing DWR had reimbursed TRLIA for $43,000,000 that TRLIA requested to replenish the Local funds they spent to construct Seepage/Stability berms along a lefees toe in 2005. I requested through channels that DWR send me an Engineer to observe the work area TRLIA had used as justification for the reimbursement. DWR did send Three Employees , one of which was a PE in the project delivery branch who observed the area with three of us interested citizens and we repaired to the site. Upon arrival I asked the Engineer to observe the toe of the levee from point A to point D and see if the Sand berms were indeed constructed as TRLIA had stated to DWR to justify prop 13 funding.

I asked all five accompaning me to observe the listed work area and see if Sand berms were constructed. None of the Five nor myself, saw the work construced.

The documents showed the State in answer to TRLIAS request through MBK engineers, did in fact credit or pay TRLIA for what appears to be a False Claim.

The Engineer Told us he would send me an E-Mail stating he saw no sand berms constructed at the site TRLIA stated as constructed on Thursday, the 23rd of June. When I E-Mailed the Engineer I found his superior had ordered all engineers who had been helping me unravel the questionable activities, to no longer contact me. The documents showed what I stated above and many Citizens, state officials have copies and are knowledgeable of the issues.

It appears either certain Engineers did not investigate to see if TRLIA actually constructed the sand berms before they reimbursed TRLIA or they looked away.

More to come.

The State engineer above was successful in stopping other engineers from helping me, again I ask, " How deep does this Corruption Go? "

In recent times TRLIA has brought issues to the public on their web sight and the Appeal democrat regarding The South bank of the Yuba River Levee such as an attempt by the Central Valley Flood control authority giving TRLIA the authority to make property owners along the East side of the levee move their property lines back several feet to give room for a patrol road.

Having been President of RD 784 I know the State requires ten ( 10 ) feet easement along that area and that has been sufficient for almost 100 years. If a levee were to break there, Flood fighters would confiscate the needed property to control the Flow . During high water, there has always been a patrol road on top of the levee, so I consider this a red herring on TRLIA's part.

The second Red herring is the Gold Fields boon doggle. That area is Corps of Engineering and State territory, nothing at all to do with Rd 784 or TRLIA, but a lot to do with Development of Homes in the Flood Plains.

The whole issue of TRLIA being created in 2004 was to bring a cash Cow into existence to feed the Plans of Yuba county Elected supervisors and their Appointed Employees to bring big government to a rural county.

In 2005 The county added numerous new positions, in fact doubled the Employee count to over 900 employees! County Officials said they had made money from the Housing boom to support all the increase, in fact, they have used that same source when explaining where funds came from. However, Any one with half a brain and knowing the County failed to audit Multi millions of Levee income, As shown by my recent disclosing of Yuba county requesting Reimbursement for three projects they did not even construct!

So, By TRLIA ( Yuba County officials) creating a Dust storm on the East side of the Area where the County falsified Sand berms were constructed, and another Dust Cloud on the West side of the Non Sand berm areas, they are hoping attention will be drawn away.

Ain't gonna happen.

Two separate State Engineers at differant times and places told me the state had removed Over $31,000,000 from TRLIAs request for reimbursement under the Non constructed sand berms mentioned earlier, I told them they should have removed all.

I sent the real cost of the Levee work in Phase 2, to the State in my packet, it shocked me and I know it shocked the state
officials.

I hear on the grape vine that Yuba County has turned all responsibility for levee issues over to Paul Brunner however, some one pays him since he works for the County and that person works for someone else in the county, so that ruse will not play.

Regarding the "dust storm" red herring on the west side of Highway 70, I saw people walking along the Land side of the Feather River East bank levee, and I went to them.

I asked what was the haps, and was told they were trying to agree on where the Levee Toe was and I from my 9 years of service with RD 784, pointed out an obvious method to determine that issue.

The Levee is sloped at a 3x1 slope and it travels about half way to the toe where sand berm begins for about 20 feet then connects with a 10 foot wide patrol road, which ends at a fence running parallel to the levee.

I offered my answer to the gathered State, TRLIA. RD784, and Citizens. If the Engineer at the scene would sight from the top of the levee in a straight line through the existing sand berm, they could visualize the trajectory located toe of the levee which was at least 10 feet inside the sand berm.

Someone, A rail road Company or someone unknown to me, constructed the Berm next to the levee, and the State needs to take their ten feet extra out of the Berm instead of the Citizens property as I stated.

The state engineer present told me the Corps of Engineers requires 20 feet leeway from the Levee toe, and I asked when that law was passed and he said well, not yet, but they are going to require it.

Who is protecting the West Linda People from TRlLA, the County Officials, and certain State officials? Not the officials who split Linda In two, or the ones who moved us into Olivehurst, or the ones who have now moved us into Marysville.

The County Officials who did this dirty deed to the People of west Linda, have an ulterior motive, which silence keeps under the radar.

All it takes for corruption to succeed is for good people to look away.

How wide spread is corruption in California ?

AZ Index
Site Map

Federal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Bureau of Investigation
Sections

Contact the FBI
FBI Headquarters
Local FBI Offices
Overseas Offices
Submit a Tip on Crime/Terrorism
Report Internet Crime
More Contacts...
About the FBI
Quick Facts
What We Investigate
Frequently Asked Questions
History
Partnerships and Outreach
Reports and Publications
Criminal Justice Information Services
Information Technology
Intelligence
Laboratory Services
National Security Branch
Training Academy
More About Us...
Most Wanted
Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
Most Wanted Terrorists
Seeking Terrorism Info
Kidnappings & Missing Persons
Parental Kidnappings
Crime Alerts
White Collar Crimes
More Wanted by the FBI...
FBI News
News Blog
Photo Gallery
Podcasts & Radio
Press Releases
RSS News Feeds
Speeches
Stories
Testimony
Video
Widgets
FBI Stats and Services
Background Checks
Crime Statistics/UCR
Criminal Justice Information Services
Fingerprints & Other Biometrics
FOIA/Records Requests
Gun Checks/NICS
Laboratory Services
Law Enforcement Services
Name Checks
Reports & Publications
Training
Victim Assistance
More Resources...
Scams and Safety
Be Crime Smart Advice
Common Fraud Schemes
E-scams & Warnings
Report Internet Crime
Sex Offender Registry
Submit a Tip on Crime/Terrorism
Get a Job!
FBI Fun and Games!

Mail Image Get FBI Updates
Home • News • Stories • 2007 • January • Corruption in California City Hall

Twitter
Facebook (5)
Share



Corruption in City Hall
The Crooked Reign of “King” Albert

01/08/07
City hall

Most of the corrupt politicians we investigate illegally peddle favors—the proverbial “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” kind, usually with money passed under the table to fully satisfy the itch.

Then there’s Albert Robles.

“He was so corrupt, he basically put an entire city under his thumb,” says Los Angeles Special Agent David Smith, who led the case for the FBI.

Robles is now serving a 10-year sentence for his 30 fraud and corruption-related crimes while treasurer of South Gate, California—a largely industrial community about 12 miles outside downtown Los Angles. The city is run by a popularly elected five-member city council, which in turn names the Mayor and Vice-Mayor.

Once elected city treasurer in 1997, Robles’ seemed determined to rule the city—purely to his own benefit. He even proclaimed himself “King of South Gate”…and referred to the city as his “fiefdom.”

His corrupt tactics included:

Using the city’s treasury as his “private piggy bank for himself, his family, and his friends” (according to acting U.S. Attorney George Cardona), costing South Gate more than $35 million and bringing it to the verge of bankruptcy;

Firing city hall employees at will, replacing them with supporters who had little experience;

Recruiting and bankrolling unqualified local supporters for city council until he controlled the council; and

Threatening anyone who stood in his way (suspiciously, one of his adversaries on the city council was shot in the head).


For the love of money. Robles and his corrupt cronies cooked up several schemes to line their own pockets. In one, Robles coerced businesses to hire a financial consultant named Edward Espinoza in order to win various city contracts, including for senior housing and sewer rehabilitation projects.

As part of this plan, Robles and Espinoza set up a shell corporation that raked in some $2.4 million—more than $1.4 million of which went straight into Robles’ pockets. He used part of the money to buy a $165,000 beach condo in Baja for his mother; he also forked over $55,000 for “platinum membership” in a motivational group.

In another scheme, Robles steered a $48 million refuse and recycling contract to a company in exchange for more than $30,000 in gifts and campaign contributions.

Making the case. Four agents in our L.A. office and one IRS agent worked to gather the proof—conducting dozens of interviews, poring over financial records, and examining information from seized computers. “We opened the case in June 2000…and spent many months getting everything together to show the length and breadth of Robles’ corruption,” says Smith.

In the end. The citizens of South Gate ultimately voted Robles and his cronies out of office (but not before he racked up huge legal bills at the city’s expense), and he was convicted at trial in July 2005. Two of his business associates—including Espinoza—also went to prison.

It’s a good case in point why we’ve made rooting out public corruption our fourth highest priority—and our top criminal one. We’ve helped convict more than 1,000 federal, state, and local government officials in the last two years alone.

Resources:FBI Public Corruption webpage

"It’s a good case in point why we’ve made rooting out public corruption our fourth highest priority—and our top criminal one. We’ve helped convict more than 1,000 federal, state, and local government officials in the last two years alone."

Fantastic! Hey, how about us? Do we qualify for FBI investigation too?

Next Tuesday, the 20th of March, TRLIA will have a meeting at 2:00 regarding having Kleinfelder Engineering certify the South bank of the Yuba River Levee as a 200 year level levee.

Part of the basis for certifying is the Corps of Engineers certified the Levee in 2007 and recommended to FEMA that they accredited the Same levee.

The Certification by the Corps in 2007 was withdrawn after the home office of the Corps in Washington D.C. found the certification by Robert trainer PE, did not meet Federal requirements of 44 CFR 65.10. To this day, TRLIA says the Corps certified the levee each time they need another certification, however, the Only certification is by Ric Reinhardt who oversaw the boondoggle of a levee construction, which is a conflict of interest.

TRLIA knows they are in deep trouble for not constructing sand berms between the Shad Road and Highway 70 bridge, and have tried several false ruses to take attention away. This is a real boon doggle if the engineering firm overlooks the true condition TRLIA has left it in.

Reading from a request from TRLIA to the State department of water resources for reimbursement of what TRLIA says were Local funds expended on constructing sand berms between the Shad road and west of the highway 70 bridge, we read. " following completion of design and construction of TRLIA phase 2 , U.S, Army corps of engineers provided certification that the following levee reaches were adequately designed and constructed to withstand the FEMA base flood."

In 2009, The corps of engineers revoked the certification, resulting in the engineer who had falsified sand berm constructed, certifying the levee himself. The engineer, did not send federal required proof of foundation, levee side, and top stability to FEMA as required, I read the listed items in each box.

I have shown the FEMA staff engineer the falsity of the engineers evidence, still the FEMA accredits the south bank of the yuba river levee and Yuba county intends to continue looking away as another engineering group seeks to certify a dilapidated levee that is certified by the engineer who directed the falsehoods of levee construction.

People, TRLIA asks you to assume the Yuba River Levee South bank is a 100 year level levee as certified by the Very engineer who falsified documents to DWR that resulted in FEMA accreditation, even with the Engineer not having 44 CFR 65.10 evidence because he could not send it, there was none.

Why is YUba County so desperate to Get 200 year certification? Because in 2015, all levees that have people living behind them have to be 200 year certified!

The south bank of the Yuba River can not be certified as a 50 year levee when following Federal Rules of levee safety, and No engineering firm hired and paid by TRLIA can skip over the 100 year certification and go directly to 200 year level.

Has the forum or site reset somehow? I'm having all the same garbage messages from day one show up again as new? Anyone else having the same problem?

Wolf - I was thinking the same thing until I had the epiphany that Mr. Archer, aka cleanup - the unexcited savior of Yuba County has been regurgitating the same opinions for the last two years under this topic. Is this the same person ho said he would stop posting? The same person who claimed he was going to ask this topic, all 15 pages, be deleted?

Here is a free suggestion Mr. Archer, if you want to change things then run for office, assuming you meet the qualifications of the office you seek.

(3) Embankment protection. Engineering analyses must be submitted that demonstrate that no appreciable erosion of the levee embankment can be expected during the base flood, as a result of either currents or waves, and that anticipated erosion will not result in failure of the levee embankment or foundation directly or indirectly through reduction of the seepage path and subsequent instability. The factors to be addressed in such analyses include, but are not limited to: Expected flow velocities (especially in constricted areas); expected wind and wave action; ice loading; impact of debris; slope protection techniques; duration of flooding at various stages and velocities; embankment and foundation materials; levee alignment, bends, and transitions; and levee side slopes.

(4) Embankment and foundation stability. Engineering analyses that evaluate levee embankment stability must be submitted. The analyses provided shall evaluate expected seepage during loading conditions associated with the base flood and shall demonstrate that seepage into or through the levee foundation and embankment will not jeopardize embankment or foundation stability. An alternative analysis demonstrating that the levee is designed and constructed for stability against loading conditions for Case IV as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) manual, ?Design and Construction of Levees? (EM 1110-2-1913, Chapter 6, Section II), may be used. The factors that shall be addressed in the analyses include: Depth of flooding, duration of flooding, embankment geometry and length of seepage path at critical locations, embankment and foundation materials, embankment compaction, penetrations, other design factors affecting seepage (such as drainage layers), and other design factors affecting embankment and foundation stability (such as berms).

(5) Settlement. Engineering analyses must be submitted that assess the potential and magnitude of future losses of freeboard as a result of levee settlement and demonstrate that freeboard will be maintained within the minimum standards set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. This analysis must address embankment loads, compressibility of embankment soils, compressibility of foundation soils, age of the levee system, and construction compaction methods. In addition, detailed settlement analysis using procedures such as those described in the COE manual, ?Soil Mechanics Design?Settlement Analysis? (EM 1100-2-1904) must be submitted.

#3, For example the Section of Levee filled in 1986 has never been upgraded, in fact in 2009 while TRLIA was sloping the waterside of the levee, they cordoned off that section from sloping to 3x1.

That section for sure is susceptible to erosion from a Base level flood.

That is what I mean when i say Kleinfelder plans to decide what is needed to increase to a 200 year level.

Another is the Missing Sand berms, ( never mind the Missing money) The hanging Slurry wall, The Boulders, all have to be fixed before a 200 year level can be addressed legally.

To the two gentlemen in post 745 &746, In order for Kleinfelder engineering to certify the Yuba River South Bank Levee, the three Federal requirements above have to be met and cert6ified as met.

The TRLIA sent requirements as required to FEMA showing the New set back levees met those requirements, However, none such requirements were met and sent to FEMA. I have read the Eight Boxes of Requirements, and The Only Work attribute to the yuba River is a Sand berm attached to the South wall, no certification of Foundation Stability, no certification of Sidewall Stability, no certification of Settlement stability.

It has not been done and therefore has to be done before Kleinfelder can certify a 200 year levee, because the 200 year certification follows the 100 year levee certification, which has nor legally beern certified yet.

Yuba county can state their project engineer, Ric Earnhardt of MBK engineers certified it but it will not stand up under court scrutiny.

Mr. Paul G. Brunner, P.E.
Executive Director
Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority
Yuba County 1 -Stop Center
11 14 Yuba Street, Suite 218
Marysville, CA 95901
Dear Mr. Brunner:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under authority of the Sacramento River Flood
Control System Evaluation reviewed work by the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority
(TRLIA) for purposes of levee certification for portions of RD 784's levee system. By this
letter, the Corps is providing certification that the following levee reaches were adequately
designed and constructed to withstand the FEMA base flood event (see Enclosure 1):

two gentlemen above is the certification that TRLIA to this day puts in every propaganda piece, showing the corps certified the south bank of the Yuba river And it is still certified for 7 years!

observe the " under the Sacramento river flood control system." Not the federal 44 CFR 65.10 law of levee safety.

The corps fly out here and revoked the certification as not meeting federal law and the engineer who falsified the sand berms being constructed, certified the levee as 100 year safe levee.

Now, the levee is not certified as required under federal law, just falsified as usual, leaving all living behind it in danger, but making certain county officials fat and happy with money.

now will you two gentlemen speak up or shut up!