Replies

Some are anon whistleblowers to sources they trust will get the word out, such as Scott Cahill & his wife. So far, this is the only "tip hotline" connection. I suspect that some of the contractors & workers were doing work they were asked by engineers (DWR or the subcontracting authority for DWR).

As a construction worker, you might wonder or question the actions at the time. Yet the engineers responsible for the "standard of care" of their profession are required to know the implications of actions in their field of expertise.

Criminal Civil Court and Civil Law do not distinguish between "incompetency" and "corruption" (i.e. intentional deviancy). If engineers do not execute their duties to the level expected of their field of expertise, they are required to maintain a "Standard of Care" to their field of expertise. That is where Civil Law identifies the Liability in lawsuits from damages (life, property, et al). So they have no excuse.

That is why DWR may be facing a huge issue of "negligence" in performing to the "Standard of Care" in their profession. They may be exposed to lawsuits to reclaim damages incurred due to the spillway failure (i.e. farmers losing swaths of property from the abrupt on/off emergency mode of operating the spillway flows, business damages from evacuations, tourism damage, etc).

Perhaps now, with evidence mounting, the contractors who performed the repair work, may realize that they could be implicated in DWR's actions as contractors are also bound under the "Standard of Care" Civil Law definition. To protect themselves, they may need to come forward to share what they know. But to whom do they go to? This liability goes to the top in the State of California as DWR is an organization of the State of California.

One option may be to contact legislators Gallagher and Nielsen before all of this blows up into a public firestorm. It may be a firestorm, for CA may be holding the bag for $500 million in the repair costs as FEMA may be forced into a corner on withholding funding assistance as this potential issue is a "failure due to maintenance" verses an unforeseen "disaster" designation.

I could envision the state then trying to go after big fish contractors that may be caught up in this "Standard of Care" Legal Liability norm. It would be best for the contractors to get ahead of this curve.