Home » News » Who’s at fault for failed $7M sewer plant upgrades?
STARKVILLE — The city, an engineering firm and several other entities are involved in a standoff in federal court over the failure of aerators at the city’s wastewater treatment plant. wastewater treatment processes
The city argues that six aerators installed as part of a $7.7 million project to expand capacity failed almost immediately after their 2020 installation. It sued the companies involved — Volkert Inc., J&P Construction, Evoqua Water Technologies and Environmental Technical Sales — late last year in Oktibbeha County Circuit Court.
The case was removed in January to federal court in the Northern District of Mississippi.
The city is alleging breach of contract, negligence and breach of warranty. Meanwhile, the various defendants are arguing that the city fails to state a legally actionable claim against them and are asking the suit be dismissed.
The Ernest E. Jones Wastewater Treatment Plant was built in 1979 and designed to handle an annual average of 5 million gallons per day. The city’s population has grown by 60% since then, and the facility is at the edge of its capacity to handle the waste.
In April 2019 the city contracted with Volkert, based in Mobile, Alabama, to design and oversee construction of an upgrade to two of the plant’s oxidation ditches. Six new aerators were to be added.
The bid to do the work was awarded to Tuscaloosa, Alabama-based J&P Construction in November 2019. The supplier for the aerators was Pennsylvania-based Evoqua Water Technologies, who were represented by its sales agent, Environmental Technical Sales of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
According to the city’s complaint, which is only one side of a legal argument, “Construction took place in 2020, and immediately after the disc aerators were installed, they began failing. While the parties have attempted multiple repairs, the disc aerator system has ever consistently worked as promised or intended.”
The city claims it spent thousands of dollars trying to fix the problem and has received notices of violations from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality due to the equipment failure.
The city also claims it will “more than likely” have to completely replace “the entire system that was installed during the project.”
“While the city does not yet know the exact reason why the disc aerators have failed, the city hired Volkert to design the system, J&P to construct the system, and the system was supplied by ETS and Evoqua,” the complaint said. “One or more of those parties are responsible for the city’s damages …”
At a March work session, Starkville Utilities General Manager Edward Kemp told the board of aldermen the plant is using temporary aerators until new ones are in place. The city should bring on no more than 100,000 gallons in additional daily use to the system, which is the equivalent of about 1,000 new customers, until the permanent aerators come online.
The utility should have $4.5 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act money to help fund the work, which is part of a package Kemp pitched at the work session. It also includes an overhaul of the electric systems and an alarm for the chlorine-sulfur dioxide building.
The city’s war chest includes $2.25 million from the city and county, as well as a state match. Mississippi State University will pitch in about a quarter of the total $9.5 million price tag.
Volkert and J&P, in their responses, argue the city did not articulate a claim against them.
Volkert, in a response filed Feb. 9, argues “the acts and/or omissions of (the city) caused, in whole or in part, their own injuries and/or damages and a recovery, if any … must be reduced in accordance with its own proportionate share of fault.”
Volkert argued it exercised “the degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same or similar circumstances,” and “acts or omissions of others” for whom the company has no responsibility caused the problems.
It further argues it cannot be held liable for the actions of independent contractors.
J&P, the company who actually performed the work, makes a similar claim in a Feb. 13 answer.
“Injuries, damages or losses alleged by (the city) were directly and proximately caused, or in the alternative contributed to, by the acts and/or omissions of (the city) and/or one of the other defendants,” J&P wrote.
J&P “complied with all plans, specifications and directives” of the city and its agents, and “had no knowledge or reason to know of any defects in those plans.”
Both Evoqua and ETS argue they didn’t owe the city anything because they did not contract with it.
The city had no contract with Evoqua, the company wrote in a Feb. 14 motion to dismiss. It never made a statement about the performance of the aerators and its contract with a third party to supply them explicitly dismissed implied warranties.
Further, the company was never given the opportunity to “cure the defect,” it wrote.
ETS similarly washed its hands of any obligation to the city.
“There is no allegation ETS had any direct involvement with the city, was under contract with the city or had any knowledge or control over the viability of the product, which was designed, installed and manufactured by others,” ETS wrote in a Feb. 13 motion to dismiss.
The city’s complaint “pled a little bit of everything into the complaint in the hopes something will stick,” ETS argued.
The case is set for trial June 2, 2025, in front of Judge Sharion Aycock.
Brian Jones is the local government reporter for Columbus and Lowndes County.
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 33 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
water treatment cdispatch.com © 2024 – The Commerical Dispatch