Previous articles described the sewage collection systems for two adjacent sewage districts where the flow measurements used to allocate expenses and bill one of the sewage districts flowmeters was questioned in court.
My testimony was strained with the first sewage district (my client) attempting to ask me questions that would reveal issues with the flowmeter installations and their accuracy, only to have the judge sustain the second sewage district’s objections. In the end, some of my findings were revealed to the court and the local press. On a side note, members of the local press attended this hearing because the alleged overbilling caused contention between the people in the two sewage districts for so long that people who lived in the first sewage district reportedly avoided shopping at stores located in the second sewage district.
From a legal perspective, my testimony revealed that nothing had changed with regard to the flowmeters since the previous litigation, so the court ruled that the second district was not obligated to make any changes to correct the flowmeter installations and calibrations.
Adding insult to injury, the lawyer from the second sewage district gave verbal instructions to change nothing — fully aware of the contents of my report and testimony. By giving these instructions, the lawyer ensured that the second sewage district would continue to knowingly overbill the first sewage district.
And there you have it. The second sewage district did not correct the flowmeter installations or calibration procedures and continued to knowingly overbill the first sewage district.
