Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A-lO <br /> <br />Wright-M.cLaughlin Engineers <br /> <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />October 27, 1972 <br /> <br />clear that the district's exposure to liability would be <br />considerably increased over either of the two alternatives <br />we have previously discussed" ilThenever the reconstructed <br />channel deviates from the nat:ura,l channel, or changes it <br />materially, the enti ty makin~r the changes assumes strict <br />liability for injury to downstream residents a.nd property <br />owners. If this alternative is adopte'd it is imperative <br />that the channel be capable of carrying the runoff through <br />the area of the study without: overtopping or doing damage <br />to any property owner which ~muld not have beE!J1 done by the <br />stream had it been left in it:s na,t.ural channel. <br /> <br />If this alternative is adop.ted it will also be the res- <br />ponsibility of the district t:o inspect:, clean and maintain <br />the channel and to prevent obstruction of the flow of wa.ter <br />through it. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE NO.4: Under t.his alternative an under- <br />grounQC;:mduit would be const:ructed to carry surface waters <br />out of the dist.rict. The proposed route of the conduit divergeE; <br />widely f:rom the natural channel of the wa ter course. At. appro- <br />priate intervals this alternative would involve the construc- <br />tion of ponds to decelerate t,he water, after which it: would <br />be discharged into the next section of conduit. <br /> <br />In our opinion, the possible problems of liability in- <br />volved with this alternative make it unat'tractive from a <br />legal standpoint. This opinion has already pointed out the <br />increased problems which result from changes in the natural <br />water course. These problems increas,e in severity as the <br />deviation from the natural channel increases. In addition, <br />we cannot avoid pointing out the problems of managing large <br />volumes of water at the velocity anticipa'ted for .this alter- <br />native and the potential friction pro:blems inherent in divert- <br />ing wate:r through a closed channel. If this alternative were <br />to be adopted, and if the system failed through design fault <br />or other negligence, the potential liabi.lity of the district <br />