Will some riprap break the Breakers?
The Breakers Association sued the Pearl River Valley Water Supply District for a declaratory judgment in Madison County Circuit Court in August. At issue: Who is going to pay for some riprap?
Construction of the Breakers condominiums began in 1980. The development now consists of 87 units in 11 buildings. The Breakers sit between Main Harbor and the Ross Barnett Reservoir (as shown in the picture above.). A lease was executed with the District in 1978.
The complaint claims the original lease did not specify who was responsible for the rip rap on the reservoir side of the Breakers' property. However, the Breakers cites one section of the lease:
Lessor reserves the right to make such variations and fluctuations in the water level in the reservoir from time to time for the proper operation and maintenance of the reservoir or for the maintenance of the minimum flows, and/or for the maintenance of water quality standards or the enhancement of fish and wildlife.
The Breakers argues since the lease does not specifically state it is responsible for maintaining the riprap, the responsibility falls on the District. However, the District predictably claims the Breakers is responsible for riprap maintenance. The dispute began in 2013.
The District attempted to execute a new lease that placed riprap maintenance with the Breakers but the Association refused to sign the agreement.
PRVWSD obtained estimates for fixing the riprap adjacent to the six buildings on the reservoir side of the development. The cost of repair will be over $75,000. The District's Chief Engineer, Mark Beyea asserted
the erosion that has occurred is primarily at the top of the riprapped slopes. To be able to control the water and prevent future recurrences of the erosion, all roof sections on the lake side must have gutters along the downslope side with downspouts extending to the ground level. Most sections of the building roofs already have gutters and downspouts, but we have noticed that a small number do not. Before we [PRVWSD] contract for any repair work, all roof sections on all six lake-side buildings must have gutters and downspouts.
The District claims water runoff from the roofs of the units on the reservoir side degraded the riprap. The Breakers strongly disagrees with the District as the Association claims 47 of the units in the six buildings are guttered while twelve were not guttered. The Breakers added gutters and the appropriate downspouts to those units.
The complaint argues:
There is no significant difference in the condition of the riprap beneath the units which are gutterd and the units which are not guttered.
The Breakers posits wave action caused by wind and boat wakes caused the degradation. If the riprap is not repaired, units will suffer foundation damage.
The complaint asks the Court to declare the District is responsible for the cost of maintaining the riprap.
The District asked the Court to dismiss the complaint, charging it was protected by sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations bars all claims by the Breakers. The lease spread on the minutes lacks any specific requirement for the District to maintain the riprap.
The case is assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge Bradley Mills. Attorneys Maison Heidelberg and Sarah Ellis represent the Breakers. Special Assistant Attorney General Lisa Repetto. represents PRVWSD.
7 comments:
Maybe it is the rats? The Breakers is utterly infested with rats!
Mark Beyea got run off from Neel Schaffer. Not a lot of credibility in his engineering opinion. This could get interesting. Heidelberg has handled construction and home/foundation litigation before.
The district should be responsible for the riprap protection required to protect the integrity of the breakwater, and no more. If the district can live with the current level of erosion, and the Breakers is concerned simply because of potential foundation damage, the Breakers should place the riprap themselves. Seems pretty simple.
Maybe it’s high time that the state legislature adequately fund its state agency (PRVWSD) so that it can actually maintain its shoreline. The state has yet to provide PRVWSD with adequate funding. Step up, Legislature. Provide rhe funding to address shoreline maintenance.
A plumber told me years back that pipes liked to freeze up in those outside walls at the Breakers, creating expensive repair costs. So couldn't freeze thaw cycles in the backfill also have affected the riprap?
Hold On! The State is not responsible but The District, a division of The State, is?
Where is "Little General Sigman" when we need him?
His opinion (based on personal experience with him) would be, "The District is not responsible since the plaintiff did not give us a a chance to correct the problem before the damage occurred".
That's the fall back position for any liability assertion leveled at PRVWSD.
If the riprap was covered with galvanized cyclone fencing mesh, wouldn't it withstand adjacent forces that topple the upper stones?
Post a Comment