Kelsoe v. State Water Resouces Control Bd.

Full title: MURRAY KELSOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE WATER…

Court: California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division

Date published: Aug 17, 2007

No. A113967 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2007)

Opinion

Page 1614a

153 Cal.App.4th 1614a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ MURRAY KELSOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. A113967 California Court of Appeal, First District, First Division August 17, 2007

Trial Court: Alameda County Superior Court No. HG 04184281, Trial Judge: Honorable Steven A. Brick

THE COURT.

The opinion in this matter, filed July 20, 2007 (153 Cal.App.4th 569; __Cal. Rptr.3d__ ), is herein modified as follows, and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:

1. On page 9 [153 Cal.App.4th 580, advance report, 1st par., line 2], the third sentence of the third paragraph is modified to read:

“But that requirement is qualified by subdivision (d)(3)(B), which applies to a specific subset of Fund claimants: as here pertinent, those claimants who (1) did not have a permit required prior to January 1, 1990, and (2) submit a claim on or after January 1, 1994.”

2. On page 10 [153 Cal.App.4th 580, advance report 4th full par., line ,1], the first sentence of the third paragraph is modified to read:

“It appears from the Board’s own decision in this case that plaintiff may have been unaware of the permit requirement prior to January 1, 1990.”

3. On page 10 [153 Cal.App.4th 580-581, advance report, 4th full par., line 4], the third sentence of the third paragraph is modified to read:

“Thus, it appears that plaintiff may fall under the provisions of subdivision (d)(3)(B), and the Board should determine from all of the evidence whether plaintiff is entitled to a permit waiver to render him eligible for a claim against the Fund.”

4. On page 11 [153 Cal.App.4th 581, advance report, 3rd full par., line 4], the following footnote is added at the end of the first full paragraph:

“We stress that our ruling is limited to the particular facts of this case, in which a UST owner paid thousands of dollars into the Fund over a period of

Page 1614b

substantial compliance—from 1994 onward—and was then told he is ineligible for Fund reimbursement because he did not have a permit prior to January 1, 1990. Other factual scenarios are not before us.”

This modification does not affect the judgment.