South Indian River Water Control District asks Solid Waste Authority to help pay for damaged roads, swales

Seth Bain, shareholder at Lewis, Lohman & Walker and general counsel for the South Indian River Water Control District, told the Solid Waste Authority board that collections tied to the authority have “caused extensive, pervasive and persistent damage” to the district’s infrastructure and asked the board to direct staff to work with the district on repairs.

Why it matters: The dispute concerns who will pay to repair roads, erosion and swales in a 20-square-mile area of north Palm Beach County. Bain said the district cannot shoulder the full cost and asked SWA staff to “burden share” at least for the most significant locations; SWA staff said it is willing to meet but disputes that the authority or its haulers are wholly responsible.

Bain summarized the district’s engineering review and cost estimate. He told the board the district cataloged 1,196 damaged sites, estimated removal of about 764 cubic yards of soil and about 4,600 square yards of sod, and identified 120 sites as “major” damage. Bain said the district’s engineers estimated materials and labor to repair the 120 largest gouges at roughly $70,000.

SWA staff described a different assessment. At the meeting, an SWA staff member said the authority’s review found 120 sites but concluded 111 reflected long-term wear and tear while 17 appeared “perhaps hauler damage.” The staff member said the authority’s position is that the passage of time makes individual responsibility difficult to assign and that the authority and its contractor deny responsibility for most dots on the district’s map.

Several commissioners urged mediation and quicker, more regular reporting. Commissioner Weiss and Commissioner Powell both asked whether the district had timely reported damage in the past; district representatives said the issue was elevated under new district management and that earlier coordination with SWA staff had tapered off. Commissioner Powell and others asked staff to set a near-term meeting date so the parties could negotiate before the board’s next meeting.

The parties’ next steps: Bain requested that the board “direct your staff to work with us to repair at least the significant locations of damage and work on an operations plan that prevents this damage from occurring time and time again.” An SWA staff member said they are willing to meet and that the county attorney’s office will be included. No litigation has been filed, Bain said.

Outlook: Board members generally urged a meeting between district counsel and SWA staff and suggested mediation as an alternative to litigation. SWA staff said it would meet and try to negotiate an out-of-court solution, but reiterated the authority’s disagreement about the scope of its responsibility.

Ending: The district lawyers and SWA staff left the meeting with a clear direction to meet and try to resolve the dispute; the board asked to be updated on progress before its next meeting.