The Smith River Rancheria has sued the company originally contracted to develop plans for the design of a sewage treatment plant and leech field, claiming the firm did not sufficiently complete the work.

The rancheria alleges in the lawsuit that in 2006, FWS Environmental Solutions’ failure to complete the design work set back the plan to switch the rancheria from septic to sewer by at least two years, according to Russ Crabtree, tribal administrator.

Crabtree declined further comment on the suit, and Michael Evans, president of FWS in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, said Tuesday he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined to comment on it.

Crabtree was willing to discuss the overall project. He said that because of the failure of FWS to complete the work or get the proper permits, the rancheria hired new companies, Wahlund Contractors out of Eureka and Winzer/Kelley Engineering, to complete the design and construction work.

“We’re well into the project now —we’ll have Phase 1 completed by April,” said Crabtree.

He said the first of two phases is the laying of more than two miles of 4-inch pipe along Oceanview Drive from the site of the treatment plant to a 5-acre leech field at the former Itzen Bulb Farm.

The leech field is “right at the border” of Oregon and California and the treatment plant, which is now under construction behind the Lucky Seven Fuel Mart on U.S. Highway 101, said Crabtree. The building of a functional sewage treatment facility is also included in the first phase.

“This is an expandable facility; we know that the rancheria will expand,” he said.

The second phase will involve laying sewage lines in the southern portion of the rancheria’s properties.

Crabtree said the “loop” of sewage lines will eventually connect the Lucky Seven Casino, Fuel Mart, United Indian Health Services in Smith River and the rest of the rancheria’s property.

He said the sewage plant currently being constructed can handle 25,000 gallons of raw sewage a day, with a peak of 50,000. Crabtree said with added storage tanks, the facility could double capacity.

Crabtree said the expandability is for future growth of the rancheria, including a 12-acre housing project.

“We’re looking for housing and we have facilities that we have to take off the septic system,” he said.

“We have two homes going in right now,” said Crabtree, noting that the two homes would be some of the first on rancheria property with sewer instead of septic.

“We’re building the road before we can drive on it — that is the future of the tribe,” he said.

The suit’s allegations
The suit filed Dec. 18 alleges that the contract, which was signed by FWS and the rancheria in October 2006, stated that design work on the sewage plant and leech field would be completed by Dec. 15 of 2006.

A copy of the contract included with the suit also stated that completion date.

It wasn’t until April 22 of last year that the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors approved the rancheria’s plan to build the sewage plant.

By the time the supervisors gave their approval, the rancheria had hired the new companies to finish the work.

In November 2006, the rancheria alleges in the suit, FWS said it could not complete the design work by the Dec. 15, 2006 deadline.

FWS continued to bill the rancheria for more than $200,000, even though FWS did not complete the work required by the contract, according to the suit.

The rancheria paid more than $200,000 to FWS, even though the work was not completed, alleged the suit.

By July 2007, the rancheria said it was billed for another $93,000, according to the claim.

In August 2007, the claim alleges that the rancheria terminated the contract “for failure to provide satisfactory services.”

Upon termination of the contract, the rancheria “demanded reimbursements of the amounts overpaid,” read the claim.

The claim alleges that FWS did “somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000” of work.

The suit also alleges that FWS did not include how to dispose of the effluent (treated sewage), stating, “The disposal plan was not submitted.” The rancheria stated that this was a main requirement laid out within the contract.

The suit states that FWS “provided to plaintiff its pre-designed, off-the-shelf, ‘standard design package’” for a facility.
The suit said that the “standard package” was submitted “without regard for regulatory and site specific considerations or the specific requirements of the contract’s scope of work.”

According to the suit, the contract required FWS to obtain the needed permits and follow specific state regulations, which the company did not do.

 The claim is asking for $160,000 in reimbursement from FWS, “compensatory damages to be determined at trial for payments to other consultants to complete the ... contract,” attorneys fees and other legal costs and “such further relief as the court may deem proper.”