Sanitary District sues Caltrans over sewer pipe repair made in 1992
The Costa Mesa Sanitary District is taking the California Department of Transportation to court over allegedly substandard work done by a contractor hired by the state agency more than two decades ago to repair a district sewer line.
The district’s complaint, filed earlier this month in Orange County Superior Court, alleges that the Caltrans contractor pierced a sewer pipe in the area of 2285 Newport Blvd. during work on a street-widening project in 1992.
The contractor never reported that damage, the complaint says. Instead, the sanitary district alleges that the contractor — which wasn’t named in the complaint — “fabricated” a repair by connecting a smaller, 6-inch pipe section to the existing 8-inch sewer line.
The district is seeking compensation to help cover the cost of fixing the entire pipe — estimated in court documents at around $33,000 — as well as to pay legal costs, according to the complaint.
“We’re going through the proper course to be reimbursed for those repairs that shouldn’t have occurred,” Costa Mesa Sanitary District General Manager Scott Carroll said.
Caltrans spokeswoman Yvonne Washington said Monday that she could not comment on the matter, as it is pending litigation.
The sanitary district didn’t discover the issue until December, after workers reported running into problems cleaning the sewer line.
The district’s crew couldn’t get the cleaning hose through the line to remove debris and cooking grease, according to Carroll.
After excavating to find out why the hose couldn’t make it through, Carroll said, the improper 6-inch pipe section was discovered.
Although there haven’t been any major issues in the area since the smaller pipe was installed more than two decades ago, Carroll said it had to be repaired because it eventually could cause the entire pipe to fail or lead to a sewage spill.
The sanitary district previously filed a claim about the pipe with the state’s Victim Compensation Board for $24,970, but that agency rejected it in May. Carroll said the board denied the district’s case because it was outside its typical scope of analysis and interpretation. Thus, the district needed to make its case locally, he said.
“We have to go through the legal system to get our money back,” Carroll said.
Twitter: @LukeMMoney
