Bonneau Dickson Highlights Steps in Water System Investigations

BERKELEY, CA, UNITED STATES, October 5, 2026 /CourierPR/ -- Bonneau Dickson, a licensed sanitary engineer based in Berkeley, California, has highlighted key steps in water system investigations. With over 40 years of engineering and wastewater experience, Bonneau Dickson, PE, has provided insight into how technical evidence is developed when water and wastewater disputes become part of an engineering dispute or legal proceeding.

Water and wastewater infrastructure consists of interconnected components that must work together under specific operating conditions. A sewer system, wastewater treatment facility, septic system, pump station, water distribution network, or stormwater facility can experience problems for many different reasons. Determining what caused a failure requires more than observing the resulting damage. It may require a review of physical conditions, engineering documents, operational records, maintenance history, site information, and other available evidence.

Forensic engineering provides a structured process for examining these questions. The process generally begins with identifying the technical issue that needs to be addressed and determining what information is available. An engineer may then review project records, inspect relevant infrastructure, analyze system conditions, and compare observed conditions with applicable engineering principles and design requirements.

The first stage of a technical investigation is therefore to define the engineering questions clearly. This helps establish what evidence needs to be examined and prevents the investigation from focusing only on the most visible result of an incident. Reviewing documents and project records can provide important information about how a system was intended to function. Depending on the matter, relevant materials may include design drawings, specifications, calculations, construction documents, inspection records, maintenance reports, operating data, photographs, correspondence, laboratory results, and previous engineering studies.

These records can help establish the original design of a system and identify changes that may have occurred over time. They can also provide information about the condition and operation of infrastructure before and after an incident. Forensic engineers may compare documented design conditions with actual field conditions. Differences between the two can become relevant when evaluating construction, operation, maintenance, or failure-related questions.

Conducting field investigations can provide information that may not be apparent from documents alone. Physical conditions can change after an incident, making photographs, inspection records, repair documentation, and other contemporaneous evidence particularly important. During a field investigation, an engineer may examine visible infrastructure, equipment, piping, drainage features, pump stations, treatment components, tanks, sewer structures, or other relevant facilities. The scope depends on the technical questions involved in the case.

The purpose is not simply to document damage. The investigation seeks to understand how the system was configured, how individual components interacted, and whether physical evidence is consistent with proposed causes of failure. Evaluating system capacity and performance is a recurring issue in water and wastewater disputes. An infrastructure system may have been designed to accommodate a particular flow, demand, population, rainfall event, or operating condition. Actual conditions may differ from the assumptions used during design.

A technical evaluation may therefore compare design capacity with actual or reported flows and operating conditions. Hydraulic calculations, system records, field observations, and other engineering information can be used to assess whether infrastructure could reasonably have handled the conditions involved in an incident. For wastewater systems, this may involve examining sewer capacity, pump performance, wet well conditions, force mains, treatment processes, or collection system characteristics. For water systems, the analysis may involve distribution piping, pumps, storage capacity, pressure conditions, or water demand.

Investigating failures and contributing factors is a complex process. Engineering failures rarely have only one possible explanation. A forensic investigation may consider several potential causes and evaluate the available evidence associated with each one. For sewage overflows, relevant factors can include blockages, root intrusion, pipe conditions, pump station operation, maintenance, system capacity, and inflow and infiltration. Septic system investigations may involve tank conditions, soil characteristics, hydraulic loading, system design, installation, maintenance, and site use.

Pump station failures may require examination of pumps, controls, valves, wet wells, force mains, electrical components, corrosion, installation, and maintenance. Stormwater investigations may involve drainage structures, detention facilities, pump stations, grading, rainfall, and hydraulic capacity. The technical evidence must be evaluated in relation to the specific circumstances rather than relying on a single observed condition.

Addressing water contamination questions can require a different set of technical considerations. Questions may involve the source of contamination, movement through soil or groundwater, sewer and water piping, cross-connections, sampling procedures, laboratory results, historical activities, and the relationship between potential sources and affected water supplies. PCE contamination cases, for example, can involve dry-cleaning operations, sewer infrastructure, groundwater conditions, pipe leakage, and the movement of contaminants. A technical investigation must distinguish between documented conditions, engineering analysis, and assumptions about how contamination may have occurred.

Once field observations and technical analyses have been completed, the findings must be organized in a form that can be understood by the parties involved in a legal matter. An engineering report may describe the scope of the investigation, information reviewed, site conditions, calculations or analysis performed, relevant engineering principles, and conclusions supported by the available evidence. Clear documentation is important because attorneys, judges, insurers, property owners, and other parties may not have specialized engineering backgrounds. Technical concepts must therefore be explained accurately without losing the details needed to support the analysis.

The distinction between observed facts and professional opinions is also important. Photographs, records, measurements, and test results may establish factual conditions, while engineering opinions are developed by analyzing those conditions using appropriate technical principles. From report to deposition and courtroom, an expert may be asked to explain the methodology used, the evidence considered, calculations performed, assumptions made, and reasoning behind technical opinions. The ability to explain an engineering analysis clearly is therefore an important part of expert witness work. The testimony must remain connected to the available evidence and the engineering basis for the opinions presented.

Experience across water and wastewater systems can provide useful context when evaluating infrastructure disputes. Experience with design and construction can help inform questions about whether a system was built according to its intended design.