Bonneau Dickson outlines how water system failures are investigated

Licensed sanitary engineer Bonneau Dickson, PE, is describing how investigators build technical evidence in water and wastewater disputes, from document review and site inspections to capacity analysis and courtroom testimony. The guidance matters because many failures involve overlapping causes that require engineering analysis, not just visible damage.

Why it matters: - Water and wastewater disputes can affect public health, property damage claims, infrastructure repair decisions, and legal outcomes. - Many failures involve multiple possible causes, so technical investigation can shape whether a problem is linked to design, construction, maintenance, operation, contamination, or capacity. - Clear engineering evidence helps attorneys, judges, insurers, property owners, and other parties understand what happened and why.

What happened: - Bonneau Dickson, PE, a licensed sanitary engineer in Berkeley, California, is highlighting the key steps used in water system investigations. - Dickson has more than 40 years of engineering and wastewater experience, including more than 25 years in forensic engineering and expert witness work. - His background includes work on water and wastewater systems, septic systems, sewer systems, wastewater treatment facilities, water treatment facilities, pump stations, stormwater infrastructure, water piping systems, and contamination investigations. - Dickson has worked on more than 100 forensic and expert witness cases involving water, wastewater, sewage, and stormwater matters.

The details: - Water and wastewater infrastructure can include sewer systems, wastewater treatment facilities, septic systems, pump stations, water distribution networks, and stormwater facilities. - A forensic engineering investigation generally starts by defining the engineering question and identifying what information is available. - Engineers may review project records, inspect infrastructure, analyze system conditions, and compare observed conditions with engineering principles and design requirements. - Relevant records can include design drawings, specifications, calculations, construction documents, inspection records, maintenance reports, operating data, photographs, correspondence, laboratory results, and prior engineering studies. - Field investigations can include review of visible infrastructure, equipment, piping, drainage features, pump stations, treatment components, tanks, sewer structures, and related facilities. - Physical evidence can change after an incident, making contemporaneous photographs, inspection records, and repair documentation especially important. - Capacity analysis may compare design assumptions with actual flow, demand, rainfall, pressure, or operating conditions. - Wastewater analysis can involve sewer capacity, pump performance, wet well conditions, force mains, treatment processes, and collection system characteristics. - Water system analysis can involve distribution piping, pumps, storage capacity, pressure conditions, and water demand. - Failure investigations may examine blockages, root intrusion, damaged piping, pump station operation, maintenance history, inflow and infiltration, drainage capacity, grading, detention facilities, and rainfall conditions. - Septic system cases may involve tank conditions, soil characteristics, hydraulic loading, system design, installation, maintenance, and site use. - Pump station failures may require review of pumps, controls, valves, wet wells, force mains, electrical components, corrosion, installation, and maintenance. - Contamination investigations can involve source identification, movement through soil or groundwater, sewer and water piping, cross-connections, sampling procedures, laboratory results, and historical site activities. - PCE contamination cases may involve dry-cleaning operations, sewer infrastructure, groundwater conditions, pipe leakage, and contaminant migration. - Engineering findings are typically organized into a report that explains the scope of the investigation, materials reviewed, site conditions, calculations, engineering principles, and conclusions. - The difference between observed facts and professional opinions matters because photographs, records, measurements, and test results establish conditions, while engineering opinions interpret those conditions. - Forensic work can continue into discovery, depositions, settlement talks, and trial, where the expert may explain methodology, evidence, calculations, assumptions, and reasoning.

Between the lines: - The article frames water and wastewater disputes as evidence problems as much as infrastructure problems. - It also shows why experience across design, construction, operations, and maintenance can matter in forensic work: each stage can reveal different failure paths. - The emphasis on documentation suggests that early records and site evidence can become decisive once conditions change after an incident.

What's next: - More disputes are likely to hinge on whether investigators can tie physical evidence to a specific technical cause. - In legal proceedings, the strength of the engineering report and the expert's ability to explain it clearly will continue to shape case strategy and outcomes. - Dickson's broader message is that careful documentation and methodical analysis are central to turning infrastructure problems into defensible evidence.

The bottom line: - Water and wastewater failures are rarely simple, and the best investigations start with the engineering question, not the visible damage.