|
|
 |
PIPE NIGHTMARE: The troubled tide continues to rise at
Tucson Water as details begin to leak about the burst pipeline
that turned a southside subdivision into Arizona's newest
Wet 'n' Wild waterpark.
The eight-foot pipeline, which we've dubbed Old Faithful, cracked open on February 5, erupting with 38 million gallons--about half of Tucson's daily water supply. The resulting flood rolled through more than 20 homes, near Greasewood Road and Star Pass Boulevard, with conservative damage estimates running about a half-million bucks. We're willing to bet the final tab will top that--and that doesn't include the cost of repairing the pipeline, which hasn't even been estimated yet. As Tucson Water's consultant continues his investigation into the disaster, we're beginning to learn the serious flaws of Old Faithful, built just a decade ago to carry CAP water from the treatment plant to customers. Jim Patterson, a former Water Department employee, was deposed as part of Tidwell V. City of Tucson, a suit filed on behalf of those citizens whose property was damaged by CAP water when it was delivered in the early 1990s. In his deposition, Patterson says he told his supervisors there were several problems with the pipeline, which has a concrete inner lining surrounded by steel cables surrounded by a concrete outer lining. One major problem was a source of groundwater that ran underneath the pipe. Patterson says one solution to such a problem is to put gravel beneath the pipe. "They chose to use dirt as a fill rather than gravel, just dirt, and if the water runs constantly under there through this dirt, it does what is called 'washes the fines out,' Patterson testified. "It actually washes the dirt out from under the pipe and eventually some day the pipe just settles and breaks, it can't be fixed." Tucson Water officials claim the section of pipe that broke did have a gravel base. "We know it did," says Mitch Basefsky, Tucson Water spokesman. "What it may have had was a mix. There's a mix of dirt and pieces of gravel. The gravel's there to allow water to get through without washing away the dirt and the dirt is there to give a smoothness of support. It may have been something like that. I don't know, yet. We're getting those records of what was actually used. We have people's recollections, and people's recollections don't match Jim Patterson's recollections." Basefsky concedes the underground water may have played a role in the pipe's failure, however. "One of the suspicions is that falling and rising water around that pipeline may have changed the chemistry of the cement and allowed water to actually soak through the outside layer of cement and contact the steel wires," Basefsky says. But according to Patterson, the problems didn't end with the stream of water. In the winter of '89-'90, Patterson was assigned the job of making sure the newly built pipeline was ready to carry CAP water. "The first day I went to the main I didn't like what I saw," Patterson told attorneys. Among the problems he cited:
Basefsky claims he'd never heard about the white powder.
"They didn't meet the specs," Patterson says in his deposition. "They installed the wrong units, backwards, corroded, not laid out properly, just various--let me put it this way: I think I found one that was right." Although Patterson says a high-ranking Tucson Water engineer told him that not all the valves were repaired, Basefsky now claims all necessary repairs were made. Tucson Water has yet to turn over records which would reveal the extent of the repairs on the pipeline, claiming the documents are currently in the hands of the utility's attorneys, who are fighting those expensive legal battles related to CAP delivery and debts. And speaking of expenses: Tucson Water staffers didn't seem too concerned about forcing the contractor to pay for the repairs on Old Faithful--not when they could just charge you ratepayers. Patterson says when he suggested the repairs should be the responsibility of the contractor, he was told three different stories. First, he was told the line was "out of warranty." "I dug around and found that it wasn't," he says. "Then I was told the contractor declared bankruptcy. So I dug around a little more, got a copy of the original contract and started asking about bonding companies. Then I was told we just needed to hurry and get it on line." Kinda makes suspicious minds wonder if anyone was getting a payoff, doesn't it? Patterson complained to everyone from the City Council to the state Attorney General's Office about the costly repairs. Eventually, a city audit report backed up Patterson's allegations. "Based on our review we noted Tucson Water engineers were aware of some amount of defective workmanship prior to the end of the contract warranty period," the report states. "Furthermore, we understand that termination of the warranty period is not a defense against poor workmanship or defective materials. Thus, it is not clear why Tucson Water did not aggressively pursue remedy through the bonding company, since the contractor would not perform the necessary repairs. "In our opinion, Tucson Water officials did not aggressively pursue whether the contractor's bonding company would provide for satisfactory repairs of the east main based on identified faulty construction," the report concludes. "Although the contractor and the Procurement Department were contacted regarding this issue, further action was not initiated with the bonding company to secure the repairs or reimburse the City for contracted repairs." TORTOLITA SALAD: The Tucson Citizen, in a February 10 editorial headlined "Misplaced energy," attacked state Rep. Bill McGibbon for again attempting to salvage the incorporations of Casas Adobes and Tortolita--something the Citizen and the City of Tucson have opposed from day one. But Citizen editorial writers once again allowed their bias to work in collusion with their ignorance when they wrote, "City officials believe the bill is unconstitutional. They also point out that state courts have upheld the 1961 law." Not hardly--the whole reason the issue is unresolved is because the 1961 law is currently being challenged in both state and federal courts. The City of Tucson once again blew smoke and stated that the 1961 law had been upheld, which it hadn't. The Citizen blindly printed that claim as fact and now compounds the error by quoting it in an editorial. BENCH PRESS: On his way out the door, former Pima County Superior Court Presiding Judge Mike Brown made the midnight appointment of Justice of the Peace Josè Castillo as presiding JP for the next two years. In making the appointment, Brown usurped the usual prerogative of his successor, Gordon Alley. While no one is particularly unhappy with Carillo, this move is typical of the kind of petty political maneuvering for which Brown had become notorious during his tenure as presiding judge. Meanwhile, Brown has taken a leave of absence. He's not that far from qualifying for retirement. Brown also handed Alley a sizable deficit: $364,713 on a $30 million budget. Nice work, your Honor. Now maybe you can drop down into San Antone for a few Spurs games. ELDER HOSTILE? In its continued attempt to appeal to the demographics of the young, as dictated by their consultants and out-of-town owners, KOLD-TV, Channel 13 News has dumped most of its older and more experienced news people. This is why KOLD News has very little institutional memory. Bud Foster is an obvious example. KOLD brass busted him from co-anchor to street reporter for no apparent reason other than age. Now Foster is pursuing the matter with a complaint to the state Attorney General's Office. The Skinny has been told the AG is actively pursuing Channel 13's allegedly discriminatory hiring practices in other incidents at the station. Perhaps the desire for a real news product will someday cross their feeble little focus group-clogged brains. PASSING THE BUCKS: The Arizona Republic recently carried a Sunday story about the Arizona Legislature that divulged much about their real pay scales. Beneath the front-page headline "Legislators' Stealth Pay," reporter Chris Moesser laid out who got how much, including mileage reimbursement. King of the cash-in was Democrat Sen. Jim Henderson of Window Rock, who scored $10,480 in per diem and $13,142 in mileage for a total of $23,622. Former speaker Don Aldridge, Republican of Lake Havasu, scored $13,080 in per diem and $6,438 in mileage for $19,518. Remember, that's on top of the $15,000 salary that voters increased to $24,000 in the last election. The per diems are only paid when the Legislature is in session or when the member is engaged in "special activity." The per diem is $60 a day for lawmakers outside of Maricopa County. The Phoenix-area folks get $35 a day, which is an even better deal because they have no real expenses, other than what any local citizen who works would incur. The average Maricopa legislator drew about $6,000 in per diem and another $1,500 in mileage. Out-of-county legislators drew much more. Our Pima County folks received the following: Senate:
House:
It's hard to tell the frugal from the lazy, or maybe the less relevant. A little quick math will tell you that a Pima legislator drawing $9,600 in per diem was on duty for 160 days, including Saturdays and Sundays when the Legislature was in session but not meeting.
That sounds like a part-time job to us. The salary just jumped
to $24,000, plus per diem and mileage, or about 40 grand for six
months' work. Remember that next time these guys beg for
a pay raise.
|
 |
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
|
 |
© 1995-99 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|
