📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
Page 272
That the prime cause(s) of the overflow of January 15, 2006 came about due to the malfunctions of circuitry which were beyond the control of and not included within the maintenance programs of The Districts.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 272
That The Districts’ responses to the overflow situation were timely, effective, competent and innovative, and in the process developed new protocols in beach sanitation treatment which are currently available to other local, state and federal agencies.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 272
That the proposed major financial liability assessment of almost $4.7 million against The Districts was unreasonable, and not fully justified under the circumstances, which eventually resulted in a greatly reduced Settlement assessment which by its terms retained the vast bulk of the ultimate payment amount for uses and purposes located within Los Angeles County.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 272
That the Settlement also precluded liability assessments against The Districts in 92 other potential overflow cases.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 272
That the Management and Staff of The Districts at all times relevant to the primary matter under investigation acted professionally, promptly, in a scientifically visionary manner, and are deserving of the highest approbation. 2006-2007 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 235
No recommendations for this finding