FLOOD08154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A-9 Wright-McLaughlin Engineers Page 9 October 27, 1972 Presumably, this al-ternativos, would entail the recon- struction of the barriers created by l:he Union Pacific Railroad crossing and the crossing by Sheridan Boulevard. Implement:ation of this alternativ'e would include the en- largement: of the opening in both of th'9se structures, with the intent of eliminating possible overtopping. The dis- trict should understand that if it undertakes the enlarge- ment or reconstruction of these struct:ures, it has taken an affirmative action which will cause it to become strictly liable to downstream residents and landowners for damage caused to them as the result of neglig"~nt planning, construc- tion or maintenance of the st:ruct:ure. In connection with this alternative we have considered the possibility of claims by downst:ream landowners that the district, having begun improvE,ments on the water course, must improve the entire water course so as to protect all adjoining properties from damage. In our opinion, such a claim could not be successfully maintained. The fact that a district constructs drains in a portion of the district will not render it liable for failure to construct them throughout the entire district: at: t,he same time. st. Joseph vs. Owen, 110 Mo 445, 19 SW 713. ,--- In our opinion, the remaining lege,l questions which arise in connection with Alternative No. 2 are the same as those arising under Alternative No.1, and we refer you to our analysis of Alternative No. L ALTERNATIVE NO.3: T)1is alternative contemplates the construction of a geometric channel for large flows with a lined channel for low flow>l in the center of the main channel. The reconstructed channel would involv'3 straightening the meanderinqs of the existing stream and some deviation from the natural thalweg to avoid artificial barriers. Although it is apparent that Alte:~native No.3 has desirable aesthetic and recreational aspec1:s, it is also