The letter focuses on the discharge of stormwater containing sand, silt, and sediment from the Woodridge Village construction site on September 19, 2019. Further, the letter alleges that this discharge caused severe damage to the City of Houston’s “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System” (MS4) and to the property of citizens.
It cites a City of Houston Ordinance: Article XII – Storm Water Discharges, Division 6 – Illicit Discharges and Connections, Section 47-741. The ordinance reads as follows. “Discharge to MS4 prohibited (a) A person commits an offense if the person threatens to introduce, introduces or causes to be introduced into the MS4 any discharge that is not composed entirely of storm water.”
The letter ends by saying, “I hereby demand that you immediately cease and desist all future discharges of sand, silt, sediment and debris from your Woodridge Village Development site into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System of the City of Houston.”
Lawrence Childress, from the Stormwater Quality department within Public Works, signed it. Childress sent identical copies of the letter to:
The letter is a “demand letter” not a court order. A demand letter is a warning shot across the bow of Perry Homes. The letter simply says, “If you do it again, we’re coming after you.”
The City did not even send the letter to the registered agents for Perry Homes et. al., just executives for the companies.
No judge has issued any kind of restraining order.
This is simply a letter from a city employee to Perry Homes, Double Oak Construction, and Figure Four Partners.
Having said that, the demand letter does put Perry et. al. on notice. It describes the basis for legal action if the developer(s) allow sediment-laden storm water to leave their site again. As such, it has value in that it may motivate Perry, its subsidiary and contractor to fix problems that exist on the site. If they don’t and the problems recur, they will face a law suit.
The letter may also have value in that it eliminates a possible line of defense, i.e., ignorance of the fact that a problem existed. Perry Homes can not now claim that the City never told them of the problems.
Another benefit: Judges typically like parties in civil suits to try to settle their grievances outside of court if they can. This letter constitutes the first step in that process. It starts the “attempted settlement” clock ticking sooner rather than later.
Sides Are Talking, But No Concrete Results So Far
Having said that, the date on the letter says September 26. What has happened since then?
Representatives of the City met with Perry Homes et. al. on or about October 15. As a result of that meeting, the developers agreed to take the steps outlined in a second letter back to the City. Basically, that letter promised to finish all the detention ponds before building homes or more roads. But they did not agree to a firm deadline.
Residents observed minor activity after the City’s demand letter. Workers scraped eroded sediment out of one of their detention ponds. However, since then, residents have observed little to no activity on the site. No new excavation work has started on the three detention ponds on the northern section since Perry’s response letter on Thursday, October 17.
The question is “Why the sudden stoppage after finishing the second detention pond (S2) on the souther section?” Usually time is money on a construction site; developers want to finish sooner rather than later. But work has virtually come to a standstill since August.
Since then residents have observed the S2 pond perpetually filled with water. To reach the pond’s target depth, contractors had to pump out water as they worked. Some question whether the water table in the area will allow Perry to achieve its stormwater detention goals. This would not be too surprising for an area of wetlands once criss-crossed by streams. Drainage converged here for thousands of years. See the drainage illustration from the LJA Engineering report below. The purple line represents the boundaries of Woodridge Village. Look closely at Section B.
Note all the streams converging in section B where Perry hopes to build 3 detention ponds and hundreds of homes. The streams have already been filled in with dirt.
Troubling Inconsistency in Letter
The City said in the cease and desist letter to Perry Homes et. al. that the sediment had caused severe damage to the City’s storm sewers. However, the City did not specify what damages were. And in public meetings in Elm Grove and at the Kingwood Community Center, Council Member Dave Martin told residents that the storm drains were NOT blocked. He said, “they’re so clean you could eat off them.” I’m not sure whether the drains are blocked or not.
The City has not yet completed its investigation of the sewers. But this is a troubling inconsistency. Frankly, looking at the ankle-deep much on Village Springs Drive next to Woodridge, I find it hard to see how the storm drains could NOT have sediment in them.
Abel Versa had to grab his car to avoid slipping in ankle-deep sediment on Village Springs. Rainwater alone would not have deposited so much muck. Sand also covered the one street in Woodridge Village two days after Imelda. Note the height of the sand pushed up against and over silt fences by the storm.
If Perry is sincere about fixing this mess, they need to come clean (pun intended). They need to explain why they have stopped work in the face of such clear cut danger. They have substantially completed only 23 percent of the detention on their site and have stopped work. The public deserves to know why.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/21/2019 with help from Nancy Vera, Jeff Miller, Bill Fowler, Amy Slaughter, Judith Rehak, Josh Alberson and Raines Rushin
783 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 32 since Imelda
All thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy 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/2019/10/Helicopter_142.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-10-21 17:56:362019-10-21 20:57:02Text of Houston’s Cease and Desist Letter to Perry Homes Regarding Sediment Discharges from Woodridge Village
Rescue from Shady Maple immediately below Perry Homes’ development, Woodridge Village, during May 7th flood.Approximately 200 homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded that day.An estimated two to three times as many flooded in September.
Readers’ Responses To First Post About Perry Letter
In regard to yesterday’s post, many flood-weary Elm Grove readers commented that Mr. Gray’s letter to the City wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Hmmmmm. Looks like the flood victims are not alone.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/20/2019 with help from Jeff Miller
782 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 31 after Imelda
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner made Mr. Gray’s letter the showcase of last Thursday’s Kingwood Town Hall Meeting in advance of early voting. The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on political matters, public policy, and public safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.BBB is a registered trademark of the Better Business Bureau.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Escape-e1588895116724.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-10-20 17:51:242019-10-20 18:03:42Perry Letter Part II: Perry Homes’ BBB Report
Thursday night at the Kingwood Town Hall Meeting, the City discussed a meeting between Perry Homes and city officials including the City Attorney. The subject: How to avoid flooding Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest again. City officials said they demanded multiple concessions from “Perry Homes.” Two days later, and only hours before the Town Hall meeting, Perry Homes (according to City officials) sent the City a letter outlining what it could do. Mayor Sylvester Turner read portions of the letter to the overflow crowd. It met with mixed reaction. Some people were grateful; others skeptical; still others angry.
Much to his credit, Council Member Dave Martin posted the letter on his FaceBook page. I have reposted it here for your convenience, along with my reactions and those of several other residents.
Page 1 of Response.
Page 2 of response.
Rehak’s Opinions
I was not in the meeting between “Perry” and the City so I cannot comment on the tone of the meeting or how the City presented its “demands.” However, several things struck me about this letter right from the opening paragraph. First of all, it’s not from Perry. That’s why I put Perry in quotes above.
The developers expressed how saddened they were by Elm Grove flooding. Yet they are suing the victims. This raises a sincerity issue from the git-go.
They say, “Your idea of sharing our collective intellectual capital was a good one, and we appreciate having the City’s input.” Sounds pretty collaborative to me. That’s normally good, but it certainly does not fit with how the City characterized meeting.
The law firm representing Perry’s subsidiaries, PSWA and Figure Four Partners, sent the letters, not Perry.
Even though the engineering plans for the site call for DETENTION ponds, the lawyer now refers to them as RETENTION ponds. The difference between the two is storage capacity. The latter is like renting a storage shed that’s 80% full…and still paying full price. The City attorney needs to question this.
The letter only says that they discussed accelerating the schedule, not that they have accelerated it.
The letter lays out timing to construct each detention pond. But it doesn’t say whether they will perform work concurrently or sequentially. If concurrently, the work would take 9+ months. If sequentially, it could take 26 months. They talk about beginning “each project as quickly as the plans can be approved.” This suggests a one-at-a-time approach that could potentially add up to 780 days…assuming there are only “minimal delays” for bidding, approvals, weather, etc.
They promised to spend 45 days completing the two southern ponds. Those ponds are already substantially complete.
The letter promises to build a berm 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation between Woodridge Village and Elm Grove. An even higher berm failed during Imelda. Floodwaters overtopped it. Perhaps that’s because Montgomery County bases flood maps on data from the 1980s.
They talk about delaying development of homes and streets (impervious cover) until they complete detention ponds. Delaying impervious cover seems like a genuine concession; developers like to build in sections so profit from one can help bankroll the next.
The lawyers claim their clients have not yet completed plans and specifications. However, LJA Engineering seemed to have a pretty comprehensive set.
The letter provides no guarantees and no penalties for non-compliance or missing target dates.
Because Perry has never revealed a construction timetable, we can’t tell whether this schedule beats their original one.
All in all, the timetable in this letter, seemed to take a lot of time for work that they could have completed by now.
Miller recently had an “aha” experience when driving by a 5-acre commercial construction site in Kingwood. It had more heavy equipment operating on it than Perry’s 268-acre site did at its peak last summer, he said.
Miller is a retired process engineer. Based on observation of that and other sites, Miller estimated excavation of three more detention ponds would take only about a month if Perry pulled out the stops. Other engineers and construction experts share this opinion.
Josh and Jon Alberson’s Opinions
Both of these brothers have engineering degrees from Georgia Tech. Josh is a chemical engineer and Jon a civil engineer. Jon works on giant construction projects for one of the largest companies in America. The Alberson brothers estimate only 10 days more than Miller. They shared their calculations. The calculations assume a two-step process. Excavate and stack the dirt. Then spread and grade it at a later time.
Basically, they calculated the volume of dirt that needs to be removed. Then they divided that volume by the per-load capacity of heavy equipment. Next, they estimated the time to move one load and return for the next. Using this technique, they could ultimately determine the total time it would take to excavate the three remaining ponds. They consulted with Caterpillar on the capacity of different types of equipment and their recommendations. Follow along to check their math.
Assume tractor cycle time for scraping, moving to pile, and returning to pond is 15 minutes. This would be a conservative transit time.
Then assume the tractor operates 20 hours per day.
Lunch – 1 hour per shift = 2 hours per day
Maintenance = 1 hour per day
Breaks = 2 x 15 minute breaks per shift = 1 hr per day
Loads per Day = 20 hours per day * 4 loads per hour = 80 loads per day
Number of Days with 1 Scraper Tractor
10,582 loads / 80 loads per day = 132 days
Number of Days with 4 Scraper Tractors
10,582 loads / (80 loads per day * 4) = 33 days
Assume 20% lost time due to non-productive time, weather, etc.
33 days * 1.2 = 40 days
Said Jon, “Most projects can move 8000 cubic yards per day.”
The two agreed on roughly the same time frame but argued over the optimum combinations of day and shift lengths, pieces of equipment, etc.
That’s just the time to dig the ponds. It assumes they stack the dirt somewhere nearby, then grade and compact it at a later date. Let’s assume that takes another month. But the ponds are excavated!
Now, we’re talking roughly TWO months instead of 9 to 26 months. And beating one or two hurricane seasons.
Note: The LJA Engineering report, upon which these calculations are based, shows at least three different storage capacities for the ponds on the northern section under “ultimate conditions”:
Exhibit 2 shows a total of 209.4 acre feet.
Table 3 shows a total of 154.2 acre feet.
Table 7 and the Conclusion show a total of 163 acre feet.
For the analysis above, the Albersons used the highest volume because it represented the most difficult case. Contractors could excavate the smaller totals, if accurate, in even less time. If 154.2 is accurate, excavation would take only 30 days.
Nancy and Abel Vera’s Opinions
Regardless of how Perry Homes staffs this job, it’s going to take some sweat. That’s the one thing that was not in evidence yesterday or today. Despite the assurances of J. Cary Gray, Attorney at Law, multiple residents reported seeing NO activity on the construction site.
As of Saturday afternoon, Nancy Vera still has seen no activity on the construction site. See the video below taken the day after the Town Hall.
Video taken by Nancy Vera on 10/18/2019, day after Town Hall Meeting
Vera’s husband Abel, manages giant construction projects around the world for one of the world’s largest engineering companies. He agrees that the construction could move much faster.
“If they had the proper equipment and man power, they could move fairly quickly. But they have never done that! They took more than six months to put in this one pond by our house [S2]. And they didn’t even really get going till after the May 7th storm.”
Abel Vera, Resident just south of S2 Detention Pond
A Faster Way?
This video shows the scraper equipment that Alberson and Caterpillar recommended to move large volumes of dirt quickly. The video runs 13 minutes but you will get the idea after a minute or two. These guys collect dirt while rolling.
The Ultimate Scraper Video
Contrast that with what I saw earlier this summer. I watched as a backhoe filled up one dump truck after another. It took several minutes to fill up each truck with multiple scoops. Then each truck took the dirt to its ultimate destination more than a half mile away rather than piling it up near the pond and returning for more dirt. It was a long, slow, dusty procedure with lots of dead time between loads.
Excavation of Woodridge Village S2 Detention Pond took months…one scoop at a time.Photo taken on May 24, 2019.
A Good Deal?
So, does the letter from Counsellor Gray represent a good deal for the residents of Elm Grove. I think not. If Perry Homes really cared about the safety and peace of mind of Elm Grove residents, they could move much faster. The letter commits them to nothing except delaying homes and streets until all detention is in. That’s something. But with most of the surface being hard-packed clay, the threat of rapid runoff remains until they finish all those detention ponds. And someone really needs to proofread that LJA report. It’s scary to think that this whole development could be based on erroneous calculations. I’m surprised Montgomery County approved it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/19/2019 with help from Josh and Jon Alberson, Abel and Nancy Vera, and Jeff Miller
781 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 30 since Imelda
The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy 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/2019/10/Cat.jpg?fit=1500%2C700&ssl=17001500adminadmin2019-10-19 14:11:002019-10-19 17:17:16“Perry” Letter: A Good Deal?
Text of Houston’s Cease and Desist Letter to Perry Homes Regarding Sediment Discharges from Woodridge Village
The full text of the City of Houston’s controversial Cease and Desist letter to Perry Homes regarding the recent flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest, has finally been made public. Raines Rushin, an Elm Grove resident obtained the letter(s) through a TPIA request (Texas Public Information Act).
Summary of Letter
The letter focuses on the discharge of stormwater containing sand, silt, and sediment from the Woodridge Village construction site on September 19, 2019. Further, the letter alleges that this discharge caused severe damage to the City of Houston’s “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System” (MS4) and to the property of citizens.
It cites a City of Houston Ordinance: Article XII – Storm Water Discharges, Division 6 – Illicit Discharges and Connections, Section 47-741. The ordinance reads as follows. “Discharge to MS4 prohibited (a) A person commits an offense if the person threatens to introduce, introduces or causes to be introduced into the MS4 any discharge that is not composed entirely of storm water.”
The letter ends by saying, “I hereby demand that you immediately cease and desist all future discharges of sand, silt, sediment and debris from your Woodridge Village Development site into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System of the City of Houston.”
Lawrence Childress, from the Stormwater Quality department within Public Works, signed it. Childress sent identical copies of the letter to:
To see the full text, including addresses, click here.
What the Letter Does and Doesn’t Do
The letter is a “demand letter” not a court order. A demand letter is a warning shot across the bow of Perry Homes. The letter simply says, “If you do it again, we’re coming after you.”
Having said that, the demand letter does put Perry et. al. on notice. It describes the basis for legal action if the developer(s) allow sediment-laden storm water to leave their site again. As such, it has value in that it may motivate Perry, its subsidiary and contractor to fix problems that exist on the site. If they don’t and the problems recur, they will face a law suit.
The letter may also have value in that it eliminates a possible line of defense, i.e., ignorance of the fact that a problem existed. Perry Homes can not now claim that the City never told them of the problems.
Another benefit: Judges typically like parties in civil suits to try to settle their grievances outside of court if they can. This letter constitutes the first step in that process. It starts the “attempted settlement” clock ticking sooner rather than later.
Sides Are Talking, But No Concrete Results So Far
Having said that, the date on the letter says September 26. What has happened since then?
Representatives of the City met with Perry Homes et. al. on or about October 15. As a result of that meeting, the developers agreed to take the steps outlined in a second letter back to the City. Basically, that letter promised to finish all the detention ponds before building homes or more roads. But they did not agree to a firm deadline.
Residents observed minor activity after the City’s demand letter. Workers scraped eroded sediment out of one of their detention ponds. However, since then, residents have observed little to no activity on the site. No new excavation work has started on the three detention ponds on the northern section since Perry’s response letter on Thursday, October 17.
Reason for Lack of Progress May Go Deeper
In November of 2018, Perry said they hoped to be selling homes by the summer of 2019. So much for the idea of possibly needing another 780 days to finish the detention ponds!
The question is “Why the sudden stoppage after finishing the second detention pond (S2) on the souther section?” Usually time is money on a construction site; developers want to finish sooner rather than later. But work has virtually come to a standstill since August.
Since then residents have observed the S2 pond perpetually filled with water. To reach the pond’s target depth, contractors had to pump out water as they worked. Some question whether the water table in the area will allow Perry to achieve its stormwater detention goals. This would not be too surprising for an area of wetlands once criss-crossed by streams. Drainage converged here for thousands of years. See the drainage illustration from the LJA Engineering report below. The purple line represents the boundaries of Woodridge Village. Look closely at Section B.
Troubling Inconsistency in Letter
The City said in the cease and desist letter to Perry Homes et. al. that the sediment had caused severe damage to the City’s storm sewers. However, the City did not specify what damages were. And in public meetings in Elm Grove and at the Kingwood Community Center, Council Member Dave Martin told residents that the storm drains were NOT blocked. He said, “they’re so clean you could eat off them.” I’m not sure whether the drains are blocked or not.
The City has not yet completed its investigation of the sewers. But this is a troubling inconsistency. Frankly, looking at the ankle-deep much on Village Springs Drive next to Woodridge, I find it hard to see how the storm drains could NOT have sediment in them.
If Perry is sincere about fixing this mess, they need to come clean (pun intended). They need to explain why they have stopped work in the face of such clear cut danger. They have substantially completed only 23 percent of the detention on their site and have stopped work. The public deserves to know why.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/21/2019 with help from Nancy Vera, Jeff Miller, Bill Fowler, Amy Slaughter, Judith Rehak, Josh Alberson and Raines Rushin
783 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 32 since Imelda
All thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Perry Letter Part II: Perry Homes’ BBB Report
In yesterday’s post about the letter that Attorney J. Carey Gray sent to Houston’s City Attorney on behalf of Perry Homes’ subsidiaries, I questioned Perry Homes’ sincerity about flood mitigation. Gray expressed his clients’ concerns about Elm Grove flood victims from May and September while his clients sue the victims. Perry Homes’ BBB report helps put Mr. Gray’s letter in perspective.
BBB Report on Perry Homes
Readers’ Responses To First Post About Perry Letter
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/20/2019 with help from Jeff Miller
782 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 31 after Imelda
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner made Mr. Gray’s letter the showcase of last Thursday’s Kingwood Town Hall Meeting in advance of early voting. The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on political matters, public policy, and public safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas. BBB is a registered trademark of the Better Business Bureau.
“Perry” Letter: A Good Deal?
Thursday night at the Kingwood Town Hall Meeting, the City discussed a meeting between Perry Homes and city officials including the City Attorney. The subject: How to avoid flooding Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest again. City officials said they demanded multiple concessions from “Perry Homes.” Two days later, and only hours before the Town Hall meeting, Perry Homes (according to City officials) sent the City a letter outlining what it could do. Mayor Sylvester Turner read portions of the letter to the overflow crowd. It met with mixed reaction. Some people were grateful; others skeptical; still others angry.
Much to his credit, Council Member Dave Martin posted the letter on his FaceBook page. I have reposted it here for your convenience, along with my reactions and those of several other residents.
Rehak’s Opinions
I was not in the meeting between “Perry” and the City so I cannot comment on the tone of the meeting or how the City presented its “demands.” However, several things struck me about this letter right from the opening paragraph. First of all, it’s not from Perry. That’s why I put Perry in quotes above.
Jeff Miller’s Opinions
Jeff Miller is an Elm Grove resident who nearly flooded on May 7th and during Imelda. Most of his neighbors did flood. For months, he has monitored the progress of Woodridge Village construction on a daily basis. He alerted the community when excavation on the site came to a virtual standstill during ideal construction weather.
Miller is a retired process engineer. Based on observation of that and other sites, Miller estimated excavation of three more detention ponds would take only about a month if Perry pulled out the stops. Other engineers and construction experts share this opinion.
Josh and Jon Alberson’s Opinions
Both of these brothers have engineering degrees from Georgia Tech. Josh is a chemical engineer and Jon a civil engineer. Jon works on giant construction projects for one of the largest companies in America. The Alberson brothers estimate only 10 days more than Miller. They shared their calculations. The calculations assume a two-step process. Excavate and stack the dirt. Then spread and grade it at a later time.
Basically, they calculated the volume of dirt that needs to be removed. Then they divided that volume by the per-load capacity of heavy equipment. Next, they estimated the time to move one load and return for the next. Using this technique, they could ultimately determine the total time it would take to excavate the three remaining ponds. They consulted with Caterpillar on the capacity of different types of equipment and their recommendations. Follow along to check their math.
Final Capacity of Detention Ponds
N1 + N2 + N3 = 209.9 acre feet = 338,638 cubic yards. (That’s compacted soil before excavation, i.e., bank cubic yards.)
Scraper Capacity per Load
Total Loads
Loads per Tractor per Day
Number of Days with 1 Scraper Tractor
Number of Days with 4 Scraper Tractors
Assume 20% lost time due to non-productive time, weather, etc.
The two agreed on roughly the same time frame but argued over the optimum combinations of day and shift lengths, pieces of equipment, etc.
That’s just the time to dig the ponds. It assumes they stack the dirt somewhere nearby, then grade and compact it at a later date. Let’s assume that takes another month. But the ponds are excavated!
Note: The LJA Engineering report, upon which these calculations are based, shows at least three different storage capacities for the ponds on the northern section under “ultimate conditions”:
For the analysis above, the Albersons used the highest volume because it represented the most difficult case. Contractors could excavate the smaller totals, if accurate, in even less time. If 154.2 is accurate, excavation would take only 30 days.
Nancy and Abel Vera’s Opinions
Regardless of how Perry Homes staffs this job, it’s going to take some sweat. That’s the one thing that was not in evidence yesterday or today. Despite the assurances of J. Cary Gray, Attorney at Law, multiple residents reported seeing NO activity on the construction site.
As of Saturday afternoon, Nancy Vera still has seen no activity on the construction site. See the video below taken the day after the Town Hall.
Vera’s husband Abel, manages giant construction projects around the world for one of the world’s largest engineering companies. He agrees that the construction could move much faster.
A Faster Way?
This video shows the scraper equipment that Alberson and Caterpillar recommended to move large volumes of dirt quickly. The video runs 13 minutes but you will get the idea after a minute or two. These guys collect dirt while rolling.
Contrast that with what I saw earlier this summer. I watched as a backhoe filled up one dump truck after another. It took several minutes to fill up each truck with multiple scoops. Then each truck took the dirt to its ultimate destination more than a half mile away rather than piling it up near the pond and returning for more dirt. It was a long, slow, dusty procedure with lots of dead time between loads.
A Good Deal?
So, does the letter from Counsellor Gray represent a good deal for the residents of Elm Grove. I think not. If Perry Homes really cared about the safety and peace of mind of Elm Grove residents, they could move much faster. The letter commits them to nothing except delaying homes and streets until all detention is in. That’s something. But with most of the surface being hard-packed clay, the threat of rapid runoff remains until they finish all those detention ponds. And someone really needs to proofread that LJA report. It’s scary to think that this whole development could be based on erroneous calculations. I’m surprised Montgomery County approved it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/19/2019 with help from Josh and Jon Alberson, Abel and Nancy Vera, and Jeff Miller
781 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 30 since Imelda
The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.