Mark Mooney, PE, the long-time Montgomery County Engineer whose office approved LJA plans for Woodridge Village and Artavia, and whose office oversaw LJA’s investigation of itself, has joined LJA Engineering as a “business development representative.” (Usually that means “sales.”)
A February 17, 2020, press release about Mr. Mooney’s appointment appears on LJA’s Facebook page. According to insiders, Mr. Mooney actually started working part time with LJA shortly after his retirement from MoCo. That happened after the May floods in 2019. However, the release now implies the relationship is full time. It appeared just days before LJA was named as an additional defendant in the Elm Grove flooding case. Below is the entire release verbatim:
MARK MOONEY, PE JOINS LJA AS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE
After 34 years with Montgomery County, during which most of the time he served as the County Engineer, Mark Mooney, PE has joined LJA Engineering.
During his tenure, he had oversight of all major road initiatives through numerous bond elections; provided advice, direction, and consultation to 5 different County Judges and 17 different County Commissioners; oversaw the review and approval of over 3500 residential and commercial subdivision plats; oversaw the review, approval and inspection of over 1300 miles of road construction; and, provided daily services to a population that grew from 160,000 residents to over 600,000 residents in the 34-year span.
“I have known and respected Mark for many, many years. When the opportunity presented itself, I knew he was a perfect fit for LJA. We have four offices within Montgomery County and are personally and professionally vested in the growth and success of our employee-owners and clients there. Mark has dedicated his career to this community, and we want him to keep doing what he does best, serving Montgomery County,” said Jeff Cannon, Senior Vice President.
Mark was a Member of the City of Houston planning commission from February 1998 to May 2019. He is a Member of the Texas Association of County Engineers and Road Administrators (TACERA) since 1998; having served as President from 2005-2006, and he has been a Member of the National Association of County Engineers (NACE) since 1998.
Joining LJA, Mark explained, “It was the confidence that I felt between myself and Calvin Ladner (LJA President), that began when we were both a lot younger back in the mid-eighties, that sealed the deal. My responsibilities as the Montgomery County Engineer were made much easier by the honesty I had with Calvin initially and then with so many of the staff at LJA throughout the years. In my 34 years in this business, it always came down to trust as being the most important aspect as a public official. At LJA, I am ready to further develop my industry relationships utilizing the same playbook that worked for me for so many years as Montgomery County’s engineer.”
End of Release
Revolving Door Between Government and Business
[Rehak here again.] Before retirement, I frequently saw how the revolving door worked between government and business. I knew a man who went to Washington and worked for the EPA in a high level position “to get his ticket stamped.” Those were his words, not mine. After working in D.C. for several years, he returned to private industry where he made considerably more money, thanks to the insights he gave clients about how the EPA worked.
Personal connections provide knowledge of agency priorities; understanding of personal hot buttons; insights into procedures; and relationships with decision makers. They all prove valuable to companies whose sales depend on public-sector approval.
Fine Line Between Harmless and Harmful
There’s nothing illegal or immoral about this per se. On the innocent side, sometimes, if projects get bogged down, a call to an old friend can:
Move plans from the bottom of a pile to the top in an emergency.
Determine what the agency’s concerns about a set of plans might be so the concerns can be addressed quickly.
Speed up slow approval processes that run up costs.
Cases like these harm no one. They represent a form of social engineering or influence peddling that has been around as long as governments. However, what is normal and accepted in principle can sometimes turn sourin practice.
For instance, private-sector engineers/consultants might urge decision makers who are old friends on the government side to:
Rubber stamp questionable plans without looking too closely at them. (“Trust me.”)
Look only at the conclusion of a report without scrutinizing the assumptions, methodologies, underlying calculations and support.
Between these two extremes, between legal and illegal, infinite shades of gray exist.
Public’s Presumption of Oversight
Cases like those in the latter category can mislead the public and have devastating consequences. The public presumes the government is overseeing development (or at least the permitting of plans). In fact, government may not be. Those plans and stamps and dazzling arrays of figures may create the appearance of professional oversight when none exists.
Families may invest their life savings in homes based on the presumption of government oversight. Officials are supposed to ensure that there is no adverse downstream impact from a new development. But as we’ve seen in Elm Grove and elsewhere, that’s often not the case.
Bad Optics for Ethics
Exerting influence can sometimes cross moral, ethical and legal lines. I’m not saying it happened with Mr. Mooney. I have no evidence to even lead me to suspect such a thing. By all accounts, Mr. Mooney is honest and reputable.
Apparent Conflict of Interest In Elm Grove Investigation
However, it was on Mr. Mooney’s watch as County Engineer that the TCEQ referred a complaint about Woodridge Village involving LJA to Montgomery County for investigation.
To inspire public confidence in the outcome of the investigation, you would think that LJA would have recused itself or the county engineer would have hired another company for this particular investigation. Neither thing happened.
Certifying No Need for Detention Ponds in 2,200-Acre Development
Mooney’s department also vetted the LJA Drainage Impact Analysis for Artavia. It certified no detention ponds were necessary for the 2,200 acre development because it would have no impact on the West Fork San Jacinto. However, the report did not examine the impact on:
Surrounding homes whose drainage has been blocked
The impact on downstream flooding, i.e., loading Lake Houston before floodwaters arrive.
Approving Dead-End Drainage
Artavia’s Drainage Ditch stops before reaching the San Jacinto West Fork. The company hopes to work out some environmental and drainage easement issues that would allow the ditch to cross the LMI mine in the background.
LMI also blames Artavia’s alleged overflow for flooding a deep pit where they are doing dry mining. A large part of the pit remains flooded; disrupting LMI’s normal operations, according to a company spokesperson. (More on this in a future post.)
Supposedly dry pit that LMI says was flooded by Artavia drainage ditch overflow.
Meanwhile, Artavia is building homes and the developments drainage ditch still does not reach the river.
Certifying “No Adverse Impact” for Woodridge Village Right Before 400 Homes Flood
Under Mooney’s watch, county engineers certified that LJA plans would have no adverse impact on Elm Grove…right before 400 homes in Elm Grove flooded.
MoCo Engineers office certified “No adverse impact” for Elm Grove where hundreds of homes flooded twice in five months last year.
Accepting Job With LJA Right Before LJA Sued by Flooded Elm Grove Residents
The optics of these incidents sure don’t inspire trust and confidence in LJA, Mr. Mooney, or Montgomery County developers. In future posts I will dig into more of the details behind these incidents.
Calls to LJA’s project manager for Artavia went unanswered for days before this post. If LJA wishes to submit a response to this post, I will publish it verbatim.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/19/2020
934 Days after Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Rescue-Truck-1.jpg?fit=1500%2C729&ssl=17291500adminadmin2020-03-19 21:02:222020-03-19 21:45:08Right Before LJA Sued, LJA Employs County Engineer Who Approved LJA Plans
On March 6, I flew over the Union Pacific bridge repairs near 59 and the West Fork and noticed some splashing I could not explain. I’ve been on a fruitless search for answers ever since. So now I’m enlisting your help. But first a quick update on the status of repairs.
Update on Repairs
Not much had visibly changed since the previous month on February 23rd. I observed that:
The north side of the river looked considerably cleaner.
Virtually all supports for the north side of the temporary bridge had been removed.
Virtually all of the old supports between the new supports for the main bridge were gone.
The big red crane was starting to retreat back to the southern side of the river.
Some sort of underwater cutting torch operation was in progress.
Pontoon-based lifting equipment was retrieving cut pipe and old cement from the river bottom.
Incremental changes since Feb. 23 flyover. This and all photos below taken March 6.
Enlargement Reveals Splashing
However, when I downloaded the images at home and reviewed them on a big screen, I saw something I could not explain. I saw a giant splash in the water under the bridge that went up at least 10 feet. At first I thought something fell from the bridge. But there was nothing on the bridge as you can see above.
Strange splash in water near old support. Caught at 1/8000th of a second from a helicopter 250 feet away.
Further review of the images reveal tanks of industrial gas, likely used for underwater cutting torches.
Tanks of what might have been acetylene for underwater torches.
Then I noticed the same splash in the same place in dozens of other images as the helicopter circled around the bridge.
Similar splash in same spot several seconds later from different camera position. Also at 1/8000th of a second.
Something falling could have created the splash in one frame. But not multiple frames. Especially since I was shooting at 1/8000th of a second to minimize vibration from the helicopter.
Shot from other side of bridge about 30 seconds later.
The series of shots shows continuous splashing in a virtually identical pattern.
26 Frames Taken 3 Seconds Apart Show Similar Splash
It took almost a minute and a half to circle the operation. During that time, I took 26 shots. Each shot shows water “erupting” in the same place, the same pattern, and to roughly the same height. All while workers sat by unconcerned!
So this was a normal part of the operation. But what caused it? I’m not familiar with underwater cutting. However, I’m guessing, with all the offshore experts in Houston, someone can explain it.
Photo of same site when workers no present by Mike Combat Wilcox.
Mike Combat Wilcox sent me this image from his boat when workers were not present. No workers. No splash. Hmmmm. The mystery deepens.
Two Ways to Help
A hearty corona-virus-free handshake through social media to anyone who has the answer. I will publish it…with a credit if you can explain it.
And let’s have some fun while we’re at it. We need more of that these days.
I’ll also publish a separate list of “creative” answers from the clueless (like me). Try to make people laugh with those. For instance, were the splashes actually “oil company stocks taking a nosedive during corona week”? You get the idea. Have fun people! If you can. I know its painful.
Posted by Bob Rehak with image from Mike Combat Wilcox on 3/18/2020
932 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Splash1.jpg?fit=1200%2C893&ssl=18931200adminadmin2020-03-18 21:12:492020-03-18 22:13:42Help Wanted: Can You Explain This Strange Splashing in Water Near RR Bridge Repairs?
It all seemed somewhat academic at the time – unless you previously flooded from upstream development. Then along came Imelda. The absence of functioning detention ponds on Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village property underscored the need for adequate detention for the second time in five months when hundreds of homes downstream in Kingwood flooded.
The engineering company for the developer, Aliana, claims their calculations show that floodwater from Artavia will beat the peak of a flood to the West Fork by 35 hours. Dasa Crowell, PE, LJA’s Project Manager for Hydrology and Hydraulics, thus concluded, “This leads us to a conclusion that the peak flows generated by the runoff from project drainage area will have no impact on the WFSJR under proposed conditions, therefore detention is not required.” See page 56 of this PDF.
In fairness, the development does include a retention pond in Section 1 labeled as a detention/amenity pond. However, aerial photos show that it has only a few feet of excess storage capacity above its normal water surface elevation. See the plans here. It’s certainly not going to hold back a 100-year rain falling over 2200 acres.
Little Buck Amenity Facility/Pond. Note that as-built conditions appear smaller than plans.
Engineers seem to be relying on drainage channels to act as their detention basins, but as we will see, that comes with some risk. And one potentially bad assumption may invalidate the whole concept.
Because detention costs money and limits the number of salable lots, developers try to get their water to the river as quickly as possible so they can “beat the peak.” Of course, racing to get water to the river in a flood is the exact opposite of what you want to happen if you are a downstream resident. Normally, you want developers to hold water back as long as practical so as not to overwhelm downstream channel capacity.
Wilds said in part, “The analysis … demonstrates that the peak flow from the developed tract will pass through the downstream cross-section approximately 35 hours prior to the peak flow from the upstream watershed. The report indicates that the 10-year, 25-year and 100-year events were analyzed and concludes that the runoff from the project drainage area will have no impact to the San Jacinto River under proposed conditions.”
“Based on this information, this office offers no objection to the analysis as presented. Storm water detention will not be required for this development as long as the developed flows up to and including the 100-year event can be adequately conveyed to the San Jacinto River.” For the full text, see page 51 of this PDF.
The Executive Summary of the most recent update of the drainage impact analysis for Artavia states, “The November 2014 memorandum documents the analysis supporting no detention requirement; this analysis provides calculations showing that the proposed Star Ridge Ranch development (as it was then called) drainage system will safely convey the rainfall runoff for rainfall events up to and including the one-percent annual chance (100-year) storm event.”
Similarities Between Woodridge Village and Artavia
Finally, LJA pushed both the Woodridge and Artavia plans through the MoCo Engineers office right before the drainage criteria manual was about to be updated again with more stringent requirements.
LJA submitted both drainage analyses for MoCo approval within approximately a year of Hurricane Harvey before flood maps, rainfall statistics, drainage criteria, and construction standards were updated.
LJA Engineering was not only playing beat the peak, it was playing beat the clock again. This will be the first of several posts on Artavia. More news to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/17/2020
931 Days after Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20200306-RJR_8998.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-03-17 21:29:282020-03-17 22:31:30LJA Engineers 2200-Acre Artavia Development in Montgomery County Without Detention Ponds
Right Before LJA Sued, LJA Employs County Engineer Who Approved LJA Plans
Mark Mooney, PE, the long-time Montgomery County Engineer whose office approved LJA plans for Woodridge Village and Artavia, and whose office oversaw LJA’s investigation of itself, has joined LJA Engineering as a “business development representative.” (Usually that means “sales.”)
A February 17, 2020, press release about Mr. Mooney’s appointment appears on LJA’s Facebook page. According to insiders, Mr. Mooney actually started working part time with LJA shortly after his retirement from MoCo. That happened after the May floods in 2019. However, the release now implies the relationship is full time. It appeared just days before LJA was named as an additional defendant in the Elm Grove flooding case. Below is the entire release verbatim:
MARK MOONEY, PE JOINS LJA AS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATIVE
After 34 years with Montgomery County, during which most of the time he served as the County Engineer, Mark Mooney, PE has joined LJA Engineering.
During his tenure, he had oversight of all major road initiatives through numerous bond elections; provided advice, direction, and consultation to 5 different County Judges and 17 different County Commissioners; oversaw the review and approval of over 3500 residential and commercial subdivision plats; oversaw the review, approval and inspection of over 1300 miles of road construction; and, provided daily services to a population that grew from 160,000 residents to over 600,000 residents in the 34-year span.
“I have known and respected Mark for many, many years. When the opportunity presented itself, I knew he was a perfect fit for LJA. We have four offices within Montgomery County and are personally and professionally vested in the growth and success of our employee-owners and clients there. Mark has dedicated his career to this community, and we want him to keep doing what he does best, serving Montgomery County,” said Jeff Cannon, Senior Vice President.
Mark was a Member of the City of Houston planning commission from February 1998 to May 2019. He is a Member of the Texas Association of County Engineers and Road Administrators (TACERA) since 1998; having served as President from 2005-2006, and he has been a Member of the National Association of County Engineers (NACE) since 1998.
Joining LJA, Mark explained, “It was the confidence that I felt between myself and Calvin Ladner (LJA President), that began when we were both a lot younger back in the mid-eighties, that sealed the deal. My responsibilities as the Montgomery County Engineer were made much easier by the honesty I had with Calvin initially and then with so many of the staff at LJA throughout the years. In my 34 years in this business, it always came down to trust as being the most important aspect as a public official. At LJA, I am ready to further develop my industry relationships utilizing the same playbook that worked for me for so many years as Montgomery County’s engineer.”
End of Release
Revolving Door Between Government and Business
[Rehak here again.] Before retirement, I frequently saw how the revolving door worked between government and business. I knew a man who went to Washington and worked for the EPA in a high level position “to get his ticket stamped.” Those were his words, not mine. After working in D.C. for several years, he returned to private industry where he made considerably more money, thanks to the insights he gave clients about how the EPA worked.
Fine Line Between Harmless and Harmful
There’s nothing illegal or immoral about this per se. On the innocent side, sometimes, if projects get bogged down, a call to an old friend can:
Cases like these harm no one. They represent a form of social engineering or influence peddling that has been around as long as governments. However, what is normal and accepted in principle can sometimes turn sour in practice.
For instance, private-sector engineers/consultants might urge decision makers who are old friends on the government side to:
Public’s Presumption of Oversight
Cases like those in the latter category can mislead the public and have devastating consequences. The public presumes the government is overseeing development (or at least the permitting of plans). In fact, government may not be. Those plans and stamps and dazzling arrays of figures may create the appearance of professional oversight when none exists.
Families may invest their life savings in homes based on the presumption of government oversight. Officials are supposed to ensure that there is no adverse downstream impact from a new development. But as we’ve seen in Elm Grove and elsewhere, that’s often not the case.
Bad Optics for Ethics
Exerting influence can sometimes cross moral, ethical and legal lines. I’m not saying it happened with Mr. Mooney. I have no evidence to even lead me to suspect such a thing. By all accounts, Mr. Mooney is honest and reputable.
Apparent Conflict of Interest In Elm Grove Investigation
However, it was on Mr. Mooney’s watch as County Engineer that the TCEQ referred a complaint about Woodridge Village involving LJA to Montgomery County for investigation.
To inspire public confidence in the outcome of the investigation, you would think that LJA would have recused itself or the county engineer would have hired another company for this particular investigation. Neither thing happened.
Certifying No Need for Detention Ponds in 2,200-Acre Development
Mooney’s department also vetted the LJA Drainage Impact Analysis for Artavia. It certified no detention ponds were necessary for the 2,200 acre development because it would have no impact on the West Fork San Jacinto. However, the report did not examine the impact on:
Approving Dead-End Drainage
Mr. Mooney’s department also took LJA’s word for the fact they would find a way to get Artavia runoff to the West Fork, despite the fact that illustrations in the approved Drainage Impact Analysis showed the main drainage ditch stopping short of the river.
A year after LJA received approval of their plans, the LMI sand mine at the base of the ditch flooded. LMI blamed Artavia’s ditch overflow for causing a massive breach in LMI’s dikes that allowed 56 million gallons of white gunk to escape into the West Fork.
LMI also blames Artavia’s alleged overflow for flooding a deep pit where they are doing dry mining. A large part of the pit remains flooded; disrupting LMI’s normal operations, according to a company spokesperson. (More on this in a future post.)
Meanwhile, Artavia is building homes and the developments drainage ditch still does not reach the river.
Certifying “No Adverse Impact” for Woodridge Village Right Before 400 Homes Flood
Under Mooney’s watch, county engineers certified that LJA plans would have no adverse impact on Elm Grove…right before 400 homes in Elm Grove flooded.
Accepting Job With LJA Right Before LJA Sued by Flooded Elm Grove Residents
Now, LJA finds itself at the heart of lawsuits by hundreds of flooded homeowners in Kingwood. And the former county engineer who could have provided insight into the county’s position has taken a job with the engineering company at the heart of the lawsuits. Think that might slant his testimony? Who wants to testify against his employer?
The optics of these incidents sure don’t inspire trust and confidence in LJA, Mr. Mooney, or Montgomery County developers. In future posts I will dig into more of the details behind these incidents.
Calls to LJA’s project manager for Artavia went unanswered for days before this post. If LJA wishes to submit a response to this post, I will publish it verbatim.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/19/2020
934 Days after Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Help Wanted: Can You Explain This Strange Splashing in Water Near RR Bridge Repairs?
On March 6, I flew over the Union Pacific bridge repairs near 59 and the West Fork and noticed some splashing I could not explain. I’ve been on a fruitless search for answers ever since. So now I’m enlisting your help. But first a quick update on the status of repairs.
Update on Repairs
Not much had visibly changed since the previous month on February 23rd. I observed that:
Enlargement Reveals Splashing
However, when I downloaded the images at home and reviewed them on a big screen, I saw something I could not explain. I saw a giant splash in the water under the bridge that went up at least 10 feet. At first I thought something fell from the bridge. But there was nothing on the bridge as you can see above.
Further review of the images reveal tanks of industrial gas, likely used for underwater cutting torches.
Then I noticed the same splash in the same place in dozens of other images as the helicopter circled around the bridge.
Something falling could have created the splash in one frame. But not multiple frames. Especially since I was shooting at 1/8000th of a second to minimize vibration from the helicopter.
The series of shots shows continuous splashing in a virtually identical pattern.
26 Frames Taken 3 Seconds Apart Show Similar Splash
It took almost a minute and a half to circle the operation. During that time, I took 26 shots. Each shot shows water “erupting” in the same place, the same pattern, and to roughly the same height. All while workers sat by unconcerned!
So this was a normal part of the operation. But what caused it? I’m not familiar with underwater cutting. However, I’m guessing, with all the offshore experts in Houston, someone can explain it.
Mike Combat Wilcox sent me this image from his boat when workers were not present. No workers. No splash. Hmmmm. The mystery deepens.
Two Ways to Help
A hearty corona-virus-free handshake through social media to anyone who has the answer. I will publish it…with a credit if you can explain it.
And let’s have some fun while we’re at it. We need more of that these days.
I’ll also publish a separate list of “creative” answers from the clueless (like me). Try to make people laugh with those. For instance, were the splashes actually “oil company stocks taking a nosedive during corona week”? You get the idea. Have fun people! If you can. I know its painful.
On a More Serious Note
Here’s another wide shot that shows the progress of bridge re-construction. Remember, the goal: widen supports so trees don’t get caught in them during the next flood.
But widening supports requires removing the old ones. Piece by piece. That’s where the cutting and pulling comes in.
If you have possible explanations (real or humorous), please reply through the contact page on ReduceFlooding.com.
Posted by Bob Rehak with image from Mike Combat Wilcox on 3/18/2020
932 Days after Hurricane Harvey
LJA Engineers 2200-Acre Artavia Development in Montgomery County Without Detention Ponds
Last August, I posted about a loophole in Montgomery County Flood Plain regulations. It allowed all developers who could prove they were “beating the peak” of a flood to bypass the requirement for detention ponds. Montgomery County Commissioners decided to leave the loophole open. They said, “We don’t have a flooding problem.”
Giant Development Exploits Detention Loophole
It all seemed somewhat academic at the time – unless you previously flooded from upstream development. Then along came Imelda. The absence of functioning detention ponds on Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village property underscored the need for adequate detention for the second time in five months when hundreds of homes downstream in Kingwood flooded.
Artavia straddles FM1314 south of 242.
The engineering company for the developer, Aliana, claims their calculations show that floodwater from Artavia will beat the peak of a flood to the West Fork by 35 hours. Dasa Crowell, PE, LJA’s Project Manager for Hydrology and Hydraulics, thus concluded, “This leads us to a conclusion that the peak flows generated by the runoff from project drainage area will have no impact on the WFSJR under proposed conditions, therefore detention is not required.” See page 56 of this PDF.
In fairness, the development does include a retention pond in Section 1 labeled as a detention/amenity pond. However, aerial photos show that it has only a few feet of excess storage capacity above its normal water surface elevation. See the plans here. It’s certainly not going to hold back a 100-year rain falling over 2200 acres.
Engineers seem to be relying on drainage channels to act as their detention basins, but as we will see, that comes with some risk. And one potentially bad assumption may invalidate the whole concept.
Problems with Beat the Peak
Because detention costs money and limits the number of salable lots, developers try to get their water to the river as quickly as possible so they can “beat the peak.” Of course, racing to get water to the river in a flood is the exact opposite of what you want to happen if you are a downstream resident. Normally, you want developers to hold water back as long as practical so as not to overwhelm downstream channel capacity.
LJA developed the Artavia River Impact Analysis in 2014 (see page 60). Based on LJA’s assurances, Dan Wilds, then MoCo’s assistant county engineer issued a letter of “no objection.”
“No Impact” So No Detention Requirement
Wilds said in part, “The analysis … demonstrates that the peak flow from the developed tract will pass through the downstream cross-section approximately 35 hours prior to the peak flow from the upstream watershed. The report indicates that the 10-year, 25-year and 100-year events were analyzed and concludes that the runoff from the project drainage area will have no impact to the San Jacinto River under proposed conditions.”
“Based on this information, this office offers no objection to the analysis as presented. Storm water detention will not be required for this development as long as the developed flows up to and including the 100-year event can be adequately conveyed to the San Jacinto River.” For the full text, see page 51 of this PDF.
The Executive Summary of the most recent update of the drainage impact analysis for Artavia states, “The November 2014 memorandum documents the analysis supporting no detention requirement; this analysis provides calculations showing that the proposed Star Ridge Ranch development (as it was then called) drainage system will safely convey the rainfall runoff for rainfall events up to and including the one-percent annual chance (100-year) storm event.”
Similarities Between Woodridge Village and Artavia
Please note that both of these analyses base their conclusions on pre-Atlas-14 rainfall statistics and therefore may understate drainage requirements significantly by up to 40%. LJA did the same with Woodridge Village.
Also note two other similarities with the LJA analysis for Woodridge Village, Perry Homes’ disaster-movie-in-the-making project.
For its modeling, LJA used something called the Clark’s Unit Hydrograph. Their reports never mention the NRCS method specified in the current Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual. The use of Clark’s methodology, which minimizes runoff estimates, has become a bone of contention in the Elm Grove lawsuits.
Finally, LJA pushed both the Woodridge and Artavia plans through the MoCo Engineers office right before the drainage criteria manual was about to be updated again with more stringent requirements.
LJA Engineering was not only playing beat the peak, it was playing beat the clock again. This will be the first of several posts on Artavia. More news to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/17/2020
931 Days after Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.