Note: Discussion information
I still am amazed at this Forensic Team's announcement for a form of a hotline for "tips" or "information". If you think about it, any information that is of actionable substance requires a substantiation (records, dates, names, companies, events, etc) to be of any impact in the Forensic Team's report. This means that the level of evidential proof has to meet a high standard, to a Civil Liability Court Level standard, as the consequences of significant information will likely end up in the courts (i.e. Lawsuits on funding liabilities of Water Customers of DWR - besides the FEMA funding forfeiture risk).
It's possible that this action by the Forensic Team was enacted to allow current DWR employees to confidentially contact with information. What a scary dilemma. You could lose your job and career if there is any "unmasking" and if there is an organizational contingent that could form a degree of "retribution" (just discussion info here...).
The fact that the Forensic Team set up a "Legal" form of an attempted firewall (see clip below), indicates that they desire real "evidence", not just "tips".
Because of the DHS designation of CEII, this factor could be the reason for designation "a) a legal requirement arises to do so". Why? If someone deems the evidence, records, information, etc provided is CEII level access, then a person faces a Catch-22. They could be "unmasked" from someone saying that this information was protected and they violated DHS directives in providing it through a public contact channel.
Thus ANY information that would be of "high evidential value" may be counter attacked or the person "unmasked" for having such knowledge/information & sharing it.
How is anyone (including retired DWR and/or past contractors) going to get over the "trust" factor on this?
= = Legal Protections (both ways) in announcement:
All information received will be treated with confidentiality, and sources of the information will not be shared with DWR or any other parties outside the six members of the forensic team unless either (a) a legal requirement arises to do so, or (b) the individuals providing information give permission to share their identity.
= = end clip
I have to question the sincerity of the “confidentiality” claim when their point of contact is a gmail account. How did that work out for Colin Powell or John Podesta?
Let’s get real: these curious busy bees need only spend this weekend reading ~ slowly ~ the mounds of data, photos, blueprints you and the FR unpaid investigators assembled on this long thread.
As I’ve said, I’m no engineer, just a child of the sixties who studied “Conservation” and the genius of the Calif. Aqueduct system which made California the (former) “breadbasket” of the world. I understood enough to feel pride in this great achievement and security in the future water supply for a semi-arid state. This thread has made clear that a kind of 9-11 is being perpetrated on innocent Californians by the anti-progress econazis who have let Oroville rot!
I recently had the chance to review the NDA issued to DWR employees, that they must sign, before being hired and the one that is issued to contractor employees. Both are detailed and contain very specific remedies and invoke a long litany of penalties for violation. Reminds me of the one most people with clearances sign when exiting the military. Point is that unless and until this group obtains status as a journalistic or a law firm I don’t believe a whistleblower status will stand for an NDA covered individual that gives them some information. There is also an active program within DWR to report your concerns about safety etc to your supervisor or an 800 number. Clearly an attempt to contain leaks.
The damage control and political containment is in full effect.
ER333, I also have pointed a few people in the water business to your work here. Two have told me that they are “very concerned” about the deficiencies you have found.
I hope you have already started your book regarding this disaster and are copywriting the material you can.
Outstanding effort on your part.
http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/20170708/letter-oroville-council-needs-to-take-critical-look-at-dwr
Letter: Oroville council needs to take critical look at DWR
Posted: 07/09/17, 2:55 AM PDT
The June 20 Oroville City Council agenda, included a vote to sign an agreement with the Department of Water Resources.
Signing any agreement with DWR at this time sends the message to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, their overseer, that Oroville is satisfied with their relationship with DWR. Signing implies approval of the agency’s record of disregard for the city of Oroville and criminal negligence regarding the operation and maintenance of the dam. They have been unwilling to maintain the spillway and unable to repair the multiple problems with the gates at the top.
A failure of even one gate, described by experts as a “when” not “if” situation, will likely lead to a cascade of failures that undermines the entire gate structure (a breach at the top that will take out the dam and Oroville as well).
The city’s attorney, Scott Huber, has traditionally advocated in favor of supporting PG&E, Cal Water, DWR, or whoever’s pounding at the door wanting to have their way with Oroville. He suggests that if FERC doesn’t relicense DWR to continue their willfully inept upkeep and dangerously inept operation of the dam, Oroville could be left without anyone to manage it. We are to believe that the state can build a dam and then walk away without decommissioning it. Fat chance.
I suspect he got this talking point from the same water vendor that gives the mayor her talking points.
The mayor advocated for signing the agreement throughout the evening. God help us all.
— Don Fultz, Oroville