Navigation
Search
Languages
Pipeline Repairs
Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Cross Reference: Legal Responsibility, Permanent Restoration
Summary: The January storms of 1995 eroded the structures surrounding Central Coast Water District's water pipeline. The above noted DSRs were prepared in August 1995 to repair eroded areas near the pipeline including the adjacent slopes and roads. The damages occurred while the facilities were still under construction. In the review of the DSRs, the damage to the facility was determined ineligible because the facility is the legal responsibility of the contractor. In November 1996, a law firm submitted a first appeal on behalf of the subgrantee to OES. In February 1997, the law firm submitted supplemental information for the first appeal. The first appeal letters included copies of Schedules of Values (SOVs) which state that the pipeline and related facilities were partially or totally completed at the time of the disaster. In February 1997, OES forwarded the subgrantee's first appeal letters to FEMA, with their concurrence, stating that the contractor had been paid for the construction work completed. In August 1997, the Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the subgrantee did not accept the work and did not have legal responsibility at the time of the disaster. The subgrantee's October 1997 second appeal is based on Section 14.4A of the contract that states that "title to the work and equipment covered by the application for payment passes to the owner at the time of payment." The subgrantee requests funding for 100% of the work under four DSRs and 75% under the fifth DSR.
Issues: Was the subgrantee legally responsible for the pipeline at the time of the disaster?
Findings: No. The contract documents do not establish that the subgrantee accepted completed portions of the pipeline at the time of the disaster. Therefore, it was not legally responsible for the facility or the disaster-related repair work.
Rationale:44 CFR 206.223(a)(3) and Stafford Act Section 406(e)(2).
Second Appeal Summary
FEMA-1046-DR
PA ID# 079-91027; Central Coast Water Authority
DSR ID# 94759,94760,94761,94767,94768; Pipeline Repairs
07/22/1998
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Central Coast Water DistrictPA ID# 079-91027; Central Coast Water Authority
DSR ID# 94759,94760,94761,94767,94768; Pipeline Repairs
07/22/1998
Cross Reference: Legal Responsibility, Permanent Restoration
Summary: The January storms of 1995 eroded the structures surrounding Central Coast Water District's water pipeline. The above noted DSRs were prepared in August 1995 to repair eroded areas near the pipeline including the adjacent slopes and roads. The damages occurred while the facilities were still under construction. In the review of the DSRs, the damage to the facility was determined ineligible because the facility is the legal responsibility of the contractor. In November 1996, a law firm submitted a first appeal on behalf of the subgrantee to OES. In February 1997, the law firm submitted supplemental information for the first appeal. The first appeal letters included copies of Schedules of Values (SOVs) which state that the pipeline and related facilities were partially or totally completed at the time of the disaster. In February 1997, OES forwarded the subgrantee's first appeal letters to FEMA, with their concurrence, stating that the contractor had been paid for the construction work completed. In August 1997, the Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the subgrantee did not accept the work and did not have legal responsibility at the time of the disaster. The subgrantee's October 1997 second appeal is based on Section 14.4A of the contract that states that "title to the work and equipment covered by the application for payment passes to the owner at the time of payment." The subgrantee requests funding for 100% of the work under four DSRs and 75% under the fifth DSR.
Issues: Was the subgrantee legally responsible for the pipeline at the time of the disaster?
Findings: No. The contract documents do not establish that the subgrantee accepted completed portions of the pipeline at the time of the disaster. Therefore, it was not legally responsible for the facility or the disaster-related repair work.
Rationale:44 CFR 206.223(a)(3) and Stafford Act Section 406(e)(2).