When last I checked on the lawsuits brought by Elm Grove residents against Perry Homes, et. al., it was early August. The plaintiff’s lawyers had added Concourse Development to the lawsuits and the defendants’ lawyers were blaming everyone in sight, including the flood victims, for their problems.
In September, 2019, residents on Village Springs Dr. in Elm Grove we’re still living in trailers from the May 7th flood when they were struck again. Woodridge Village is immediately to the right, just out of frame. Shown here: sheet flow coming from Woodridge.
Since August, both defendants and plaintiffs have filed another 122 documents, totaling hundreds of pages on the Harris County District Clerk’s website. Some make entertaining reading.
Now, for instance, the defendants’ lawyers argue that they shouldn’t be forced to produce resumes for people being deposed because experience has nothing to do with qualifications.
So here’s what’s happened since the last update.
Key Developments in August
Double Oak Construction moved to quash plaintiffs’ “notice of intent” to take the oral depositions of ten individuals (8/17/2020)
Figure Four Partners, LTD, PSWA, Inc., and Perry Homes, LLC moved to quash deposition notices and subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas for documents) (8/18/2020)
Concourse Development, Rebel Contractors, LJA Engineering, and Texasite LLC made similar but separate motions (8/19/2020)
Plaintiffs’ move to compel depositions (8/20/2020)
Defendants then requested an emergency status conference to discuss the motion to compel.
Judge Lauren Reeder denied the emergency conference (8/24/2020)
Defendants then contacted the plaintiff to set up depositions (8/25/2020). Depositions for 7 of 10 defendant employees were set up
Plaintiff’s lawyers sent a letter to the court revoking the request to compel depositions for those 7 individuals (8/27/2020)
Figure Four Partners objected to defendants’ request for production of documents, arguing among other things that the defendants had not adequately defined the word “person.” (8/31/2020). The defendants requested, among other things to see the defendants’ (plural) Joint Defense Agreement.
Defendants fired off a blistering response the same day (8/31/2020). They argued that Figure Four previously admitted that defendants had a joint-defense agreement, that Figure Four was engaged in a “blatant attempt to mislead the court,” and that Figure Four had not found one mutually agreeable deposition date since April 1.
September Developments
Double Oak moved to transfer venue out of Harris County. They claimed third parties, not they, produced plaintiffs’ damages. (9/11/2020)
Plaintiffs filed “responses to the responses” of Double Oak, Rebel Contractors, Concourse Development, Figure Four, PSWA, and Perry Homes. Plaintiffs, for the most part, allege that defendants failed to be specific in their responses. For instance, when defendants’ alleged that plaintiffs’ damages were the result of prior or pre-existing conditions, they failed to specify what those pre-existing conditions were.
Defendants also alleged that, because they “acted with due care” and “complied with all applicable federal, state, and local law,” defendants’ claims should be barred. Plaintiffs took exception to that claim. They pointed out that defendants do not name “one statute, regulation, or common law requirement that they complied with so that Plaintiff’s claims would be barred.”
October Developments
On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a seventh amended petition with 14 exhibits totaling 273 pages.
One of the major changes: the inclusion of “trespass” as a cause of action. Paragraph 54 under Count 7 on page 23 says, “A defendant commits trespass to real property where there is an ‘unauthorized entry upon the land of another, and may occur when one enters—or causes something to enter—another’s property.’” Barnes v. Mathis, 353 S.W.3d 760, 764 (Tex. 2011).
Other sections of the amended petition appear to have minor changes and updates that address issues raised to date during the case. Rather than try to summarize them all here, I’ll simply provide a link to the amended petition.
Separately, Figure Four objected to the subpoena duces tecum for Richard Hale. Defendants had requested his resume and legal documents to prepare for his deposition (10/19/2020). Lawyers for Figure Four claim Mr. Hale’s experience is not relevant. That seems to asking defendants to take a lot on faith! Figure Four lawyers also claim that by asking for papers that Mr. Hale used to prepare for his deposition that defendants are violating attorney/client privilege.
Figure Four also filed an objection to Taylor Gunn’s subpoena duces tecum. They claimed the subpoena wasn’t a subpoena, that his experience was not relevant, and that the request violated attorney/client privilege.
Rebel and Double Oak also objected to documents they were expected to produce, claiming they didn’t have enough notice (10/26/2020).
November, December Developments
In November, not much happened. Defendants filed documents showing that they had a “Rule 11” agreement with Concourse. A rule 11 agreement refers to Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures. Rule 11 says that an agreement between lawyers in a case is enforceable if the agreement is: A) in writing and B) filed in the papers of the court or C) unless it be made in open court and entered in the record.
In December, LJA filed an objection and response to the plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum for Taylor Baumgartner. LJA also argued that the subpoena violated attorney/client privilege. However, Baumgartner agreed to bring his resume to the deposition.
Status of Depositions, Discovery, Start of Trial
Both sides have done significant written discovery. Estimates range upwards of 20,000 pages of documents produced to date. Depositions reportedly started in late October. Lawyers will schedule more in January/February.
The trial still appears to be scheduled for the two weeks beginning September 20, 2021. But that could be pushed back by COVID concerns.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/2/2020
1191 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 440 since Imelda
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/2019/09/Village-Springs-3.jpg?fit=1125%2C1500&ssl=115001125adminadmin2020-12-02 20:36:002020-12-02 21:10:09Defendants, Plaintiffs Latest Legal Wrangling in Elm Grove Lawsuits
Back on June 25, 2020, the Woodridge Village detention ponds passed their first modest test when they retained a 2.32-inch rain that fell in a little more than an hour. The mostly excavated, but not-quite-finished ponds eroded badly, but no one in Elm Grove or North Kingwood Forest flooded. Then came Beta.
Design Capacity of Detention Ponds
LJA Engineering designed the Woodridge Village detention ponds to hold only a 12-inch rain in 24 hours. And the night before the storm, forecasters predicted Beta could drop 12 inches in the Lake Houston Area. Beta had already dumped 15-inches just a few miles south. All this created high anxiety. But in the end, the Lake Houston Area received less rain.
Elm Grove resident Jeff Miller measured just 5.5 inches in his rain gage – well within the theoretical design capacity of the detention ponds. But that was almost exactly the amount that flooded Elm Grove on May 7, 2019.
Ponds 40% Short of Atlas-14 Requirements
On top of that coincidence, other factors contributed to the anxiety felt by residents. LJA did not design the ponds to meet new Atlas-14 rainfall requirements; they’re 40% short. Nor did LJA acknowledge floodplains or wetlands on the property when they calculated detention requirements. All of these factors contributed to flooding Elm Grove last year and called LJA’s ethics into question.
So it was a welcome relief when the people of Elm Grove rolled out of bed Wednesday morning to find they didn’t flood.
How Well Did Ponds Perform?
Here’s what the ponds looked like after about five to six inches of rain. All photos were taken shortly after Beta’s rain stopped on Wednesday, 9/23/2020.
Looking north at N3 Detention Pond along eastern border of Woodridge Village where it joins the east-west portion of Taylor Gully. Note pond is a little less than half full, not surprising for a rain that was a little less than 50% of the design capacity.Likewise, the massive N2 detention pond on the western border was less than half full.Looking SE across the empty N1 pond on the western border. It had already drained into N2.
Two Failures in N3 Pond
However, there were two failures, both in the N3 pond. Neither was mission critical.
Water could not get into N3 without overflowing the edge of the pond, causing erosion. Stormwater seems to want to collect here. This same area eroded badly in a previous storm.In a second place along N3, erosion blew out the entire western wall.
Overflow Spillway Apparently Not Used
The overflow spillway at the county line between the concrete lined channel and the S2 detention pond was apparently not needed during Beta. There were no signs of erosion (see below) that were present after previous floods.
Rain was spread out enough that it appears water from Taylor Gully and N3 stayed in the concrete-lined channel rather than using the emergency overflow spillway that leads back into the S2 detention pond (right) and the twin culverts.
Nevertheless, despite recently planting grass along the banks of the ponds, Perry Homes still has a significant erosion problem. Note the color of the water in Taylor Gully at the top of the image above. The company is redepositing silt in the ditch, which HCFCD just cleaned out.
Living Under the Threat of Bad Planning
A big test of these ponds will be a 12-inch rain. If the ponds can successfully detain that much rain without flooding Elm Grove, we will know they at least function as planned…despite their 40% shortfall in capacity.
But the ultimate test will be when we get a larger rain. LJA Engineering and Perry Homes did NOT design them for that.
Unless Harris County and the City can piece together a deal to buy this property and build more detention, residents could flood again. The real disaster scenario here could be the purchase deal falling through. If Perry or some other builder develops this property, downstream residents will forever live under the threat of that 40% shortfall.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/24/2020with thanks to Jeff Miller
1122 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 371 since Imelda
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/2020/09/20200923-DJI_0750.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2020-09-24 06:53:092020-09-24 06:56:05Woodridge Village Detention Ponds Pass Another Test
Harris County Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis
Garcia Also Wanted to Add New Condition
Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia also wanted to add a new condition. He wanted to get the City to give Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) a place on the City’s planning commission. At this point in the meeting, it looked like the motion could die again.
However, Houston Mayor Pro Tem DAVE MARTIN assured Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia that he would fight to get HCFCD a place on the Planning Commission. Garcia then decided to vote for the motion. Earlier this month, the two jointly requested the Planning Commission to consider higher flood mitigation standards in their planning decisions.
How Vote Went Down
Garcia emphasized that he didn’t like the Woodridge Village motion per se, but that he trusted Martin to get the County a seat on the planning commission. Thus, he would vote for the Woodridge earnest money proposal.
Veteran observers of Commissioners Court say this was the first time Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia contemplated splitting their vote. Previously, they have always voted as a block.
Commissioners Jack Cagle and Steve Radack had already voted for the motion. When Garcia flipped, Ellis and Judge Lina Hidalgo read the handwriting on the wall. They also voted for the Woodridge earnest money contract at that point. The final vote: 5-0.
What Comes Next
At this point, final language of the Inter-Local Agreement with the City must be hammered out in the next 120 days. The City must also agree to the conditions listed above by:
Identifying land worth half the purchase price
Contributing assets or cash equal to half the purchase and development costs
Updating certain regulations affecting flood plain development
It also seems to me that the County must develop plans for Woodridge so that it can estimate costs and how much the City will have to contribute.
Finally, Perry Homes and its subsidiary, Figure Four Partners, must agree to all the conditions and sign the earnest money contract.
There is still a long road ahead for this deal. But today was a great step forward. At least we’re on the road now, thanks in large part to Commissioner Jack Cagle and Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin who refused to let this deal die.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/15/2020
1113 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 362 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Rodney-Ellis-9.15.20-mtg.jpg?fit=1200%2C796&ssl=17961200adminadmin2020-09-15 19:04:062020-09-15 19:29:07Harris County Commissioners Approve Negotiation of Earnest Money Contract for Woodridge Village
The purchase of Woodridge Village from Perry Homes’ subsidiary Figure Four Partners is back on the agenda for Harris County Commissioners Court next Tuesday. All conditions previously imposed on the deal by Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis have been addressed this time.
Part of the 268-acre Woodridge Village being considered for purchase as a flood control facility. If purchased, HCFCD would greatly expand the flood detention capacity. While Perry Homes has virtually finished construction of their planned detention ponds, those are still about 40% short of Atlas-14 requirements.
This time, the County Attorney will present the proposal, not Flood Control or the County Engineer’s office. See item 14 G below.
Agenda Item 14-G
14. County Attorney
g. Request that Commissioners Court authorize the Real Property Division manager or assistant division manager to sign an earnest money contract with Figure Four Partners, Ltd., for the purchase of two tracts of land containing approximately 267.35 acres in Montgomery County for the Woodridge Village stormwater detention basin in the amount of $14,019,316, approximately $5,100,770 below the appraised value, with purchase of the property being contingent upon certain conditions and commitments.
Reportedly, the agenda item moved to the county attorney this time because the purchase of the property is a legal issue.
Any projects done on the property after the purchase will fall into the domains of Flood Control or Engineering.
From the letter above, it appears the county has an opportunity to purchase the land below the market appraisal – a rarity.
Previous Conditions Specified in Letter
The purchase will be contingent on Flood Control and the City of Houston entering an Inter-Local Agreement within 120 days of the execution of an earnest money contract. The earnest money contract will also require several commitments by the City. Commitments include, but are not limited to, the following:
City will contribute land to the county equal to one-half of the purchase price for flood damage reduction projects.
City and the Flood Control District will equally share costs associated with the basin’s development AND post-development maintenance. The deed will show both the City and District as co-owners of the two tracts of land.
City will adopt updated detention and fill mitigation requirements that, at a minimum, match Harris County regulations and Atlas 14 requirements – BOTH inside the City AND within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Will Ellis Add New Conditions?
The subject of Woodridge has come up at Commissioners Court at least five times in the last six months. Each time, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis has used the occasion to add new conditions to the deal. All of his conditions, however, have been addressed in the letter above from Robert Soard, the First Assistant County Attorney.
If you would like to speak to the commissioners on this topic, you need to sign up no later than 8 a.m. on the day of the Commissioners Court meeting at https://appearancerequest.harriscountytx.gov/.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/13/2020
1111 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 360 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20200911-RJR_1153.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-09-13 12:55:182020-09-13 13:59:48Woodridge Village Purchase Back on Commissioners Court Agenda – With All Conditions Addressed
In the Harris County Commissioners Court meeting on 8/25/2020, Commissioners again considered the purchase of Woodridge Village from Perry Homes – at least one small aspect of it that would have allowed them to lock in the price while other details are worked out.
For months, the County has considered purchasing the property to create a regional flood detention facility along Taylor Gully. On Tuesday, County Engineer John Blount placed an item on the agenda requesting that Commissioners declare the purchase of the property north of Elm Grove a “public necessity.”
The declaration is a procedural formality that would allow the county to enter into an earnest money contract to lock in the price. The terms of the contract, however, would not have obligated the county to write a check until all conditions placed on the sale had been dealt with satisfactorily. After a half hour of debate, the Court took no action.
Ellis Goes On Attack Again
Once again, Commissioner Rodney Ellis used the opportunity to try to add two new conditions to the purchase. In the process, he exaggerated the cost of the deal and misrepresented the substance of previous votes.
The proposed new conditions were that the City should pay for half of any new lawsuits arising from the property and that the City should pay for half of the maintenance costs.
The following timecodes are approximate. This is a summary, not a transcript. These portions of the 30-minute discussion stood out because of their importance or inconsistencies.
“Recommendation that the court find a public necessity exists for the Flood Control District to purchase Tracts G503-06-00-01-001.0 and G503-06-00-01-002.0 in Montgomery County from Figure Four Partners, Ltd., in the amount of $14,019,316 plus closing costs for the Woodridge Village stormwater detention basin, and that the Real Property Division Manager or Assistant Division Manager be authorized to sign any agreements or closing documents associated with this transaction.”
Ellis Leads Off Discussion With Leading Questions
2:01:12: Commissioner Ellis says “Judge, I have a few questions…” and the debate begins. As usual, Mr. Ellis begins by asking leading questions. And the answers are usually obvious. On this day he asked whether the purchase would lead to increased maintenance costs.
2:01:40: Russ Poppe, executive director of the Flood Control District replies, “Yes.”
2:01:50: Ellis asks how much the District’s maintenance budget would decrease should the county adopt a “no-new-revenue” tax rate for next year.
2:02:10: Poppe says that he has seen spreadsheets [which have not been made public] that indicate reductions to operations and maintenance budgets could begin next year, but he doesn’t mention a percentage.
2:02:37: Ellis says, “So the costs will go up” and “…It will be a significant increase.” [Editor’s note: the amount of the increase was never mentioned. You need to be a fast listener when Ellis has the floor.] “So my question is, ‘Why would the district proceed with construction of mitigation assets if we don’t know if we may be unable to maintain them?
Would it make more sense – if we adopt the no-new-revenue rate – to pause third and fourth quartile bond projects until revenue is sufficient to maintain?
Rodney Ellis
[Editor’s Note: by accelerating projects in LMI and SVI neighborhoods, Ellis has delayed projects, such as this one, in other precincts.]
Ellis continues. “Why will we keep starting more projects and we have no idea how we’re going to maintain them?” [Editor’s Note: He does not ask the same question of projects in his precinct.]
2:03:27: Poppe replies, “You bring up a concern that I had, too, Commissioner. Because I know our funding is going to have to increase in order for us to take care of all this infrastructure to the level that our residents are going to expect us to make sure that it functions when we need it to function.”
Confusion over Previous Conditions
2:03:40: Ellis asks Blount or Poppe to restate the conditions previously imposed on the deal that should have preceded the County moving forward with the project. [Editor’s note: I submitted a FOIA request to the County asking for the exact text of that motion, approved in open court. The County denied the request. I appealed. The County submitted it to the State Attorney General’s office for review. The attorney general has not yet ruled on the issue.]
2:04:10: Poppe starts his reply by talking about the demand for half the purchase price. “The city has indicated they do not have the cash available to make up their half of the contribution to acquire the site, which is around 14 million dollars. And the city has indicated that they would rather transfer land assets in the value of at least half of the purchase price to us for use as flood-risk reduction projects. That was condition number one.”
“Condition number two was that the City of Houston adopt updated detention and mitigation rates commensurate with the Atlas-14 rainfall rates. And that was both to be adopted inside not only their city of Houston limits, but also their ETJ.”
“And then the third…”
2:04:45 Ellis interrupts. “And have they done that?”
Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis
2:04:50: Poppe replies, “No, there’s an ongoing task force or work group for which I think John’s office (County Engineer) and my office both have people who sit in and contribute to those conversations. But no, they have not adopted increased mitigation requirements yet.”
“And then the last piece that has to occur, Commissioner, is we have to execute an inter-local agreement that addresses those issues I just mentioned, as well as other details, as one might imagine, come up as you start developing a site of this magnitude.”
Ellis Reminds Poppe about Getting City to Pay for Half of Construction
2:05:17: Ellis, referring to a second motion to include construction costs in the City’s half of the deal, asks, “And wasn’t that talk about paying for half the cost to do something with it? I thought that was in the motion. And also paying for half the cost in the event there’s a lawsuit … and … a commitment to pay for half of what it takes to maintain?” (Editor’s note: Paying for half the construction costs was in a previous motion. But the motion did NOT include the City paying for half of legal or maintenance costs.)
2:05:54: Poppe replies. “Yes, Commissioner, those were all issues we’ve talked about, but I don’t believe those were actually directed by court. I know that’s your intention and I want to get those issues addressed with the City as part of our inter-local agreement, too, because those are real costs.”
2:06:54: Hidalgo incorrectly states that Ellis’ additional requirements WERE part of previous motions. “And they WERE, Russ. I remember this is about the fourth time we’re going back over what we agreed. Maybe someone ought to just go back and listen to the transcript and send it around, because as I remember, it was that half of both the purchase and whatever happens and then the detention requirements and there could be assets of land. But we’ve had the same discussion quite a few times. I think in the end we agreed.” (Editor’s note: this contradiction may have something to do with why the FOIA request was denied and appealed to the State AG.)
2:07:45: After a long diatribe about how the City can’t be trusted, Ellis states that he can’t support the deal unless there’s an inter-local agreement that specifies objectives IN WRITING. (Editor’s note: Ellis previously insisted that an inter-local agreement was worthless and that the City had to actually comply with all County demands BEFORE the County moved forward.)
Ellis then worries that there won’t be enough money to complete projects in his district.
Ellis Likens Project to Buying Brooklyn Bridge
2:16:46: Ellis likens the Woodridge Village project to acquiring the Brooklyn Bridge.
2:17:00 Poppe explains that the County provided an inter-local agreement to the City that addresses all the issues under discussion.
“We are still waiting to hear back from them to actually sit down and have a negotiation meeting to make sure that they’re on the same page as us with those initial concepts and the inter-local agreement.”
Russ Poppe, Exec Director, HCFCD
2:17:38: Hidalgo says, “So we can take no action on this item?”
County Attorney’s Office and Cagle Clarify Earnest Money Contract
2:18:43: Robert Soard from the County Attorney’s Office clarifies the purpose of the earnest money contract. It:
Commits the seller to the price.
Gives the County 120 days to work out an inter-local agreement with the City.
Specifically says the inter-local agreement has to be approved by Commissioners Court before the court has to buy the property.
2:24:05: Commissioner Jack Cagle says, “This is not nearly as complicated as we’re trying to make it. We have people in Harris County that are at risk of flooding because of the property that’s upstream. We have a chance to lock in a very good price to be able to acquire property to help people that live in Harris County.”
“Understand that we have all the criteria that have been added to the initial idea. And the ball has moved a little bit since our very first meeting. But with all of that in place, to be able to at least lock in the price – as opposed to letting that price float with someone on the other side who is trying to decide what they want to do – I think is a reasonable thing.”
“And if we can’t meet the three criteria or the five criteria or the seven criteria that might come down the pike, then we don’t meet those. But at least let’s give ourselves a locked-in price and a set of targets to move towards. These are people in Harris County that we’re trying to help in times when they’re concerned with things that are coming in to our area with regard to water – tropical storms, hurricanes, flooding.”
Ellis Drops New Bomb; Commissioners Take No Action
2:25:40: Ellis says that he won’t support the declaration of necessity because it raises “false hope that we’re going to do it,” meaning purchase the property. He also says, “And the city is telling us that they are not going to make a decision on those policy matters [Atlas-14 implementation], but they would like us to commit to this 50 to 70 million dollars.” During this part of the discussion, Ellis doubles previous estimates and ignores the fact that the City would be paying for half, but no one corrects him. He couples the Woodridge-Village purchase with setting the tax rate, as if he’s getting ready to blame a tax increase on Elm Grove.
And then he drops the big one. He admits, “those people who have gotten water in neighborhoods where there were no equity standards will be left out.”
Rodney Ellis, Harris County PRECINCT 1 COMMISSIONER
The reference to equity has to do with the application of poverty standards to the prioritization of bond funds. He explicitly states that if your neighborhood doesn’t meet LMI or SVI criteria – his definition of equity – you won’t benefit from the $2.5 billion bond fund.
The discussion ended shortly thereafter.
Commissioners decided to take no action and defer the motion to a later date.
Again, please don’t just accept my summary of Tuesday’s meeting; view the video yourself. The discussion was rambling, disjointed, and filled with “memory lapses.” But I believe this summary captures the main points.
Breaking a Golden Rule of Conflict Negotiation
It’s clear from Cagle’s cynical comment about the three, five, or seven conditions, that he despairs this deal will ever be finalized. Every time it comes up, Ellis tries to add more conditions. Most distressing is the fact that he’s also trying to redefine motions that the Court previously agreed to. And that the county refuses to produce the text of after a valid FOIA request.
Harris County Commissioners Court has a real transparency issue.
Ellis is diverting money to projects in his district with new conditions that evolve in each meeting.
A golden rule of conflict resolution states that if you agree to a deal three times and someone still keeps trying to add conditions, you should disengage. That person is just not being honest with you.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/27/2020
1094 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 343 since Imelda
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/2020/08/Ellis-8.25.jpg?fit=1200%2C793&ssl=17931200adminadmin2020-08-27 19:38:582020-08-28 04:50:00Commissioner Ellis Tries to Add New Conditions to Woodridge Deal – Yet Again
Defendants in the Elm Grove flood lawsuit have filed more than 20 new documents with the Harris County District Clerk since mid-July. The big news: The addition of Concourse Development, LLC to the lawsuit has pushed back the trial date from March to September next year. It has also triggered more victim-blaming plus claims and cross-claims among the defendants.
Background
In 2019, runoff from 268 clear-cut acres under development by Perry Homes contributed to flooding in Elm Grove, not once, but twice. Victims sued two subsidiaries of Perry Homes who were developing the property. They also sued several contractors, and LJA, the engineering company.
Screen capture from video taken by Cogdill family during May 7th flood of 2019 shows water streaming out of Woodridge Village into Elm Grove.
Perry Homes is the parent company of subsidiaries PSWA and Figure Four Partners, who were originally sued.
Many Elm Grove Families had to be rescued.
Concourse Development bought the property now known as Woodridge Village on 1/12/2018 and sold it to Perry Homes six days later.
Five developers owned the Woodridge Property before Figure Four Partners, LTD, a Perry Homes subsidiary.Concourse owned it for six days before flipping it to Figure Four. Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District.
The addition of Concourse to the lawsuit prompted multiple requests by Concourse and other defendants to delay the trial again – until September 20, 2021. Concourse said it didn’t have enough time for discovery and preparation. Given that the case was already almost a year old, Concourse claimed it had a lot of catching up to do. In their response to the plaintiffs’ sixth amended petition, Concourse also pointed some fingers at other defendants. One then filed a cross-claim against Concourse (see below).
Concourse Blames Victims and Almost Everyone in Sight
Concourse then lists eight pages of defenses. They repeat the phrase “Pleading further, and in the alternative, if such be necessary and subject to the foregoing pleas and without waiving same…” a grand total of twenty times. That means, “If the general denial doesn’t work, we reserve the right to claim X. And if X doesn’t work, we reserve the right to claim Y. Etc.”
More Than 20 Defenses Asserted
With that as a preface, Concourse also pleaded that:
Concourse was not the immediate or sole cause of the flooding and damages.
“Acts, omissions, fault, negligence and other conduct of the Plaintiffs” were the immediate and sole cause, in whole or in part, of the flooding and their damages. (They do not explain why they believe that, though.) Said another way, the victims caused their own damages.
Other defendants caused the damages.
New and independent third parties caused the damages.
Other people caused the damages.
Concourse had no obligation to the victims.
Concourse’s conduct was reasonably prudent.
The flooding was an unavoidable accident.
Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.
Their contract (presumably with Perry) gives them indemnity.
Any payments made by other parties (not a part of the litigation) to Defendants should offset any liability Concourse may have. (Presumably, they’re talking about insurance companies.)
Any award against Concourse must be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to others, including the Plaintiffs themselves, and third parties.
Flooding was caused by an intervening, but unspecified cause.
Plaintiffs’ claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To the extent that Plaintiffs allege lost wages or loss of earning capacity, recovery should be limited to post-tax earnings or net earnings.
Plaintiffs’ damages resulted from prior or pre-existing conditions over which Concourse had no control and did not cause.
God caused the damages.
Any punitive damages awarded in the case should be reduced in proportion to Plaintiffs’ own negligence.
Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred because Concourse acted with due care and complied with all laws and regulations.
Plaintiffs’ assumed the risk that resulted in their “alleged” damages.
Punitive damages violate the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US. Constitution and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Punitive damages violate Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the Texas Constitution, and the United States Constitution.
Prejudgment interest should be limited under Texas Law.
Plaintiffs have not fulfilled all the conditions necessary to maintain the lawsuit.
The One Satisfaction Rule should govern any awards.
The last point means that a plaintiff should only recover once for a particular injury. It applies when several defendants commit the same act or when multiple defendants commit different acts that result in one injury.
Defendants Now Fighting Among Themselves
If many of those points sound contradictory, they are. But Concourse has covered all its bases.
In #3 above, Concourse pointed the finger of blame at other defendants in the case. Evidently, Double Oak Construction, Inc., one of the other defendants didn’t like that. So…
On 8/6/2020, Double Oak filed a cross-claim against Concourse. Double Oak alleges that Concourse should be held directly liable to plaintiffs for any and ALL damages they suffered. Double Oak also wants a jury to decide Concourse’s percentage of liability.
Why is that? Double Oak alleges that “…the Developer Defendants hired Concourse on May 8, 2019, the day after the extreme weather event on May 7, 2019, to inspect the Development and that Concourse did not advise the Developer Defendants to make any changes to the detention.” Nor, they claim, did Concourse advise Double Oak or the other Contractor Defendants to make any changes to their work after the inspection.
Therefore, Double Oak further alleges, Concourse is liable to Plaintiffs for damages and any award levied against Double Oak.
Double Oak Objects to Concourse Production of Documents
In its response to the Plaintiffs, Concourse also gave “notice to all parties that any and all documents produced during discovery may be used against such parties at any pre-trial proceeding and/or trial … without the necessity of authenticating the document.”
Double Oak objected to this. Double Oak claims it doesn’t know what specific documents Concourse intends to use, therefore Double Oak is handicapped in its defense.
Trying to anticipate every single document produced by any party would cause an undue hardship, claims Double Oak. Double Oak reserved its right to authenticate any and all documents that Concourse produces as part of discovery.
The Woodridge MUD claims that the Plaintiffs’ subpeona is “overly broad and seeks to inquire into matters subject to the attorney-client privilege.” They also claim that some of the requested documents involve matters discussed during executive sessions of the Woodridge MUD board.
The MUD also refuses to produce documents anywhere other than at the offices of its counsel.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2020
1077 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/2020/08/Rescue-Truck.jpg?fit=1500%2C729&ssl=17291500adminadmin2020-08-09 18:51:242020-08-09 23:29:49More Delays, Denials, and Victim-Blaming in Elm Grove Lawsuit
This is the story of a Vietnam veteran and former police officer who has lived in Elm Grove for more than 25 years. John Hulon’s troubles started when he was laid off from his job after brain surgery. Then he had a stroke. Followed by a heart attack. After being forced into retirement, he discontinued his flood insurance to save money. Then he flooded. Twice. John spent his life savings to restore his home and replace two vehicles. Now, a planned mitigation project that could protect his home from future flooding has become a political football. Regardless, he focuses fondly on his neighbors and the 12 volunteers from Second Baptist Church who helped him in his darkest hours.
Interview with John Hulon
Rehak: How badly did the 2019 floods affect you?
Hulon: We lost everything.
Gutting the Hulon Residence after May Flood
Rehak: Why did you buy your house in this neighborhood?
Hulon: We always wanted to buy a house. So, we started looking around. A real-estate lady, who was an ex-Marine, took good care of us and showed us some homes.
You can tell immediately as you walk in a house if you like it. My wife fell in love with this one instantly. And then the real estate agent opened the curtains and we saw the home had a swimming pool. That was the icing on the cake. So, we bought it. And we’re still in love with it.
No Flood Insurance
Rehak: Did you pay off the mortgage before it flooded?
Hulon: Yes.
Rehak: Is that why you didn’t have flood insurance?
Hulon: Flood insurance was a condition of the mortgage. But after paying the mortgage off, I dropped the insurance because, in the history of Elm Grove, it had never flooded here. And at that point, all we had was Social Security and military retirement. I couldn’t afford the insurance anymore.
Swollen doors and waterlogged studs.
High School Graduation Trip…to Vietnam
Rehak: What branch of the military were you in?
Hulon: Air Force. In security.
Rehak: Was that back during Vietnam?
Hulon: Yeah, for my high school graduation trip, I went to Vietnam.
You could say I grew up over there. I went when I was eighteen. In 1967.
Rehak: How long were you in the Air Force?
Hulon: Twenty years. I retired in 1987.
Preserving the Uniform. The Army uniform belonged to Hulon’s father. He died of Agent Orange after serving in WWII, Korea and VietNam where he was also wounded.
Rehak: Were you in combat?
Hulon: Minor. Mostly I guarded airplanes.
Switch to Law Enforcement
Rehak: What did you do when you came back?
Hulon: I was stationed at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California. And then I got out of the Air Force for a while after initially serving four years and went back to Louisiana, where my parents lived. I got a job as a city policeman in Leesville, Louisiana. And while there, I met an Air Force recruiter. He persuaded me to rejoin the Air Force. I told him I’d rejoin if he could get me changed from security to law enforcement, which he did. Then after I got out of the Air Force the second time, I started working in retail as a loss prevention manager. And later in IT.
Loss Prevention Manager Who Lost Everything
Rehak: Loss prevention! That makes a good transition to Elm Grove. You lived there for decades. Did you flood in May or just in September of 2019?
Hulon: I flooded in both. In the first flood, we only had to tear out half the walls. But we also had to buy all new furniture, new beds, new everything. We’d just finished that when it flooded again in September.
Rehak: How much of the house did you have restored before it flooded again?
Heirlooms lost to sediment-laden floodwater
Hulon: Walls and floors. We were in the process of repairing the cabinets. We had brand new cabinets before the first flood and they’re still here. They were still usable after the first flood. But after the second flood, they wouldn’t close. They still need to be redone, but we haven’t redone them yet.
Rehak: Will you tell me a little bit about your medical history.
“I Died in the Back of That Ambulance”
Hulon: I was sitting at my desk working and I started feeling really funny and I knew something was wrong. My co-workers wanted to call an ambulance. But instead I drove my truck home. My wife and daughter were going to take me to the hospital. But we only got to the end of the street before they had to turn around. They called 911. By the time the ambulance came, I was pretty much out of it. They put me on the stretcher.
In my mind, I died in the back of that ambulance.
John Hulon
Rehak: Why do you say that?
Hulon: I had an out-of-body experience.I was actually looking down at myself from above somewhere while they worked on me. When I got to the hospital, they did a brain scan and thought I had cancer. Turned out it was an abscess. The surgeon told me, “I just barely touched it and it popped.” So, I’m very lucky. They did the surgery and I stayed in the hospital for about two months.
Stroke and Heart Attack
Rehak: And then?
Hulon: Then I had a stroke.
Rehak: When did you have your heart attack, John?
Hulon: About two years ago. After Harvey.
Rehak: What triggered that?
Hulon: I don’t really know. I was just sitting watching TV when I started feeling funny and had a lot of pain in my back. It wasn’t normal. I was injured pretty bad in Vietnam. So, I’m used to back pain, but not like this. I laid down on the couch and I knew something was wrong. I called 911. They came and said I was having a heart attack.
Rehak: Did you need a bypass or a stent?
Hulon: No, they just put me on a blood thinner and some blood pressure medication.
Floods Used up Entire Life Savings
Rehak: Rebuilding your house twice must have cut into your life savings.
Hulon: Used up every penny of it. Everything had to be redone. Everything. In the first flood, they only had to go up about four feet on the sheetrock. But in the second flood, they had to replace everything up to the ceiling, all rooms.
Rehak: How far are you from the Perry site?
Hulon: About three blocks.
Rehak: Did the water come from that direction?
Hulon: Yes, through yards and down the street.
Rehak: Was it clear or a muddy?
Hulon: Very muddy.
Dog encounters glove
Rehak: Was there a current going down the street?
Hulon: The water was flowing like a river.
“This is What I Could Do in My Life”
Rehak: What went through your mind as the water came up?
Hulon: I said to myself, “Look at everything we’ve built 40 years of marriage on!” Believe it or not, I was very calm at the time. I just said, “This is what I could do in my life.”
Paid Contractor Up Front for Work Not Completed
Rehak: Were you able to find a good contractor?
Hulon: We found one that wanted $5000 upfront. They did 90 percent of the work and never showed up again.
Rehak: So sad.
Thinks About Volunteers from Second Baptist All the Time
Hulon: Yeah, but, you know, before that, volunteers from the Second Baptist Church came over. They’re great people there. They sent 12 people to our house when my daughter called. They stripped the walls for us. Wow. They were in and out in like a couple of hours, men and women. And I was so impressed.
Rehak: Incredible.
Hulon: And they kept coming back for a month after that. Every day. They brought us hot meals!
Rehak: That’s amazing.
I think about their kindness all of the time.
John Hulon
Rehak: This was such a beautiful neighborhood before it flooded.
“These Were All Nice Houses Out Here”
Hulon: It still is, considering all the devastation. People on the internet talk about how this area is so poorly maintained. That’s a bunch of crap. These were all nice houses out here.
“We lost everything.”
Rehak: What do you hope will happen at this point?
Hulon: I hope we can recover some of our life savings and complete the work that we still need to do. I’m not getting any younger. We just need a little cash. I don’t want to leave my wife with nothing.
“It Would Probably Kill Me”
Rehak: How do you feel about having invested your life savings in restoring a house that may flood again?
Hulon: (Choking up)I don’t know. If we flood again, I’ll probably move to Louisiana and live with my sister. Jesus, I can’t live through that again, I’ve got flood insurance now, but I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know. I’ll probably move to Louisiana. I don’t want to. But I don’t think I could take another flood. I mean, it would probably kill me.
Everybody Helping Everybody
Rehak: Is there anything else you want to tell me, John?
Hulon: How our little neighborhood came together. I mean, it was just amazing. Everybody on the street was just like family. Everybody was helping everybody. But of course, all of Kingwood is that way. That’s what makes this such a great community.
Posted by Bob Rehak on August 07, 2020
1074 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 323 Since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/received_391741088178196.jpg?fit=670%2C1200&ssl=11200670adminadmin2020-08-07 13:31:242020-08-07 16:25:00The Long, Hard Road from Vietnam to Elm Grove for John Hulon
In a court document filed today, Perry Homes LLC has answered Elm Grove flood victims and says the damages suffered by flood victims were their own fault.
Last month, lawyers for flood victims named Perry Homes LLC as an additional defendant. (Previously, only Perry’s subsidiaries and contractors had been named as defendants.)
Perry Homes is asking the Court to enter a judgment and let the Plaintiffs take nothing. The company claims plaintiffs’ allegations are not true and has issued a general denial.
In addition, Perry claims that:
Plaintiffs’ damages are a result of pre-existing conditions.
Damages resulted from an act of God.
Damages resulted from independent causes for which Defendant is not legally responsible
Damages were caused by acts, omissions, or negligence of third parties over which Defendant had no control
Plaintiffs shared the fault and therefore Perry shouldn’t be held wholly responsible.
Plaintiffs claims should be barred because Perry acted with care and complied with all laws.
Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred because plaintiffs somehow failed to mitigate their own damages (presumably decades before the damages occurred).
Plaintiffs have not fulfilled all conditions necessary to maintain the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should be subject to the one-satisfaction rule. (Under Texas law, the one-satisfaction rule states that a plaintiffs can only recover damages once. For instance they can’t recover total damages from Perry and then again from LJA Engineering, which was also named as an additional defendant).
Plaintiffs’ claim for pre-judgment interest is limited by the dates and amounts set forth in Chapter 304 of the Texas Finance Code. (The law specifies that the prejudgment interest rate is equal to the post-judgment interest rate applicable at the time of judgment. It also specifies that interest may not compound and when interest charges may start.)
Again, even if they are at fault, Perry should not be fined for exemplary or punitive damages. Exemplary and punitive damages, they claim, violate:
The Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution
Article 1, Sections 3 and 19 of the Texas Constitution
Due process and equal protection under the law
In regard to the last point, Perry Homes makes no mention of the laws that allow exemplary or punitive damages. Nor do they reference cases that point to standards of proof for exemplary or punitive damages.
Pleads “Further and In the Alternative” Thirteen Times
The lack of specificity in Perry Homes’ filing makes it difficult to decipher what the claims actually mean. However, Perry uses the phrase, “Pleading further, and in the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing…” 13 times. Basically that means, “If the judge or jury won’t buy X, we still reserve the right to plead Y.”
This is more than a shotgun defense; it’s a blunderbuss defense. But why would lawyers who get paid $1000/hour want to get to the point, tip their hand, or limit their client’s options?
Victim Blaming At Its Finest
There’s an undercurrent of victim blaming in much of Perry Homes’ points.
Perry subsidiaries have previously claimed that many Elm Grove homes were in the floodplain. Claiming victims should have somehow prevented flooding in homes that were built 40 years earlier – when they never flooded until Perry clearcut land immediately upstream from them – is the height of chutzpah.
I use that term in the sense of “brazenness” or “audacity.”
It’s like pleading that the shooting victim was at fault because he failed to get out of the way of the gunshot.
It ignores the fact that someone pulled a trigger. Collectively, Perry, its subsidiaries and contractors violated Section 9.2 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual.
Section 9.2 states that “Pursuant to the official policy for Montgomery County, development will not be allowed in a manner which will increase the frequency or severity of flooding in areas that are currently subject to flooding or which will cause areas to flood which were not previously subject to flooding.”
Perry Homes’ victim blaming shows how Perry now thinks. Their bizarre logic – and the hollow claim that they followed all laws – explain a lot about why Elm Grove flooded. Perry today is a far cry from the company that Bob Perry founded in 1968.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/13/2020
1049 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 298 since Imelda
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/2019/09/Elm-Grove-9.19_68.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2020-07-13 16:51:432020-07-13 18:49:45Perry Homes Blames Elm Grove Flood Victims
Correction on 7/4/2020: The article below was based on a City of Houston District E newsletter. It inferred that the City “applied for” five grants (in bullet points below). Other entities, such as the SJRA, applied for those. Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin personally supports them.
The City of Houston has submitted several applications to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for Flood Infrastructure Fund dollars. Among the projects was one for Taylor Gully Flood Damage Reduction. It consists of evaluating flood reduction alternatives plus design, permitting, and construction of a detention basin located on a 278 acre site to the north of the Elm Grove subdivision.
Looking SW atWoodridge Village as of 6/16/2020
Woodridge Project One of Six Apps
Other applications include:
San Jacinto River Sand Trap Development
Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering
Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study
Lake Conroe-Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Study
Harris County MUD #153 Siltation Reduction
“All of these projects submitted for funding promote regional resiliency and future sustainability in an effort to protect life and property from future flooding,” said Mayor Pro Tem and District E City Council Member Dave Martin. “The ability to submit these projects to the TWDB for funding would not be possible without State Senator Brandon Creighton’s writing of Senate Bill 7. We continue to applaud the Senator for his forward thinking and hope to receive funding for these projects. State Representative Dan Huberty has also been a vocal proponent for resiliency within our area and just beyond the City boundary. We are thankful to have him as a local engaged leader.”
Looking NW from US59 (foreground) over San Jacinto West Fork at the confluence of Spring Creek (left) and the West Fork (right). Spring Creek splits off to left. Its watershed contains several natural areas that might make candidates for flood control dams.
Neither Martin, nor his office, provided additional details on any of the grant applications.
However, from the wording of the release, it sounds as though state leaders are fully aligned and engaged to support the projects.
Woodridge Village Project Has Long History
The grants, if approved, could help reduce flooding throughout the Lake Houston Area.
Both the City and County have been silent on any deal since then. The County refused a Freedom of Information Act request to release the text of the motion, which was approved in a public meeting. They even protested release of the information to the State Attorney General.
Putting Application in Historical Context
The following is speculation, but speculation based on the historical context. It appears that when County Commissioners voted to demand that the City come up with half the the purchase AND construction costs, the City found it hard. The grant application, if successful, is a way for the City to help the people of Elm Grove, who flooded twice last year after Perry Homes cleared 268 acres of adjacent land.
At the time of the floods, less than 25% of the planned detention pond capacity was in place. Perry has since developed additional detention ponds that provide the other 75%.
A joint reservoir operations study seems necessary. Currently, FEMA is funding a preliminary engineering study to add additional gates to the Lake Houston Spillway. If FEMA also approved the money for construction of the gates, they will be a game changer.
The Spring Creek Watershed flood control dams would provide additional upstream detention. Community leaders identified that as a high priority after Harvey. They would reduce the amount of water coming downstream during a flood.
Sand bar blocking mouth of Rogers Gully has backed up water and contributed to flooding. Photo taken 6/16/2020.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/3/2020
1039 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/20200616-RJR_4383.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-07-03 11:55:542020-07-04 14:02:25City Applies for TWDB Grants to Turn Woodridge Village Into Detention Basin and More
The official rain gage at West Lake Houston Parkway and the West Fork San Jacinto recorded 2.32 inches of rain between 7 and 9 a.m. this morning. That was officially a 1-year rain. (See Atlas-14 chart below.) As rains go, it was not a severe test; it was more like a pop quiz.
After the rain subsided, Taylor Gully in Elm Grove was less than half full.
The good news: Taylor Gully was well within its banks and no one in Elm Grove or North Kingwood Forest flooded. The bad news: Perry’s detention ponds experienced severe erosion, enough to warrant repairs and perhaps delay the schedule.
The even worse news: Harris County’s meteorologist, Jeff Lindner predicts another one to two inches of rain tonight with isolated totals of three to four.
West Lake Houston Pkwy. Gage Showed 2.32 Inches In 2 Hours
24 hour rain totals for WLHP gage showed bulk fell in 2 hours.
2.32 inches in two hours qualifies as a one-year rain according to the new Atlas-14 rainfall precipitation frequency estimates. Even if you considered the entire 3.12 inches in 24 hours, it would still only be a one year rain.
Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Table for the Kingwood Area.
Aerial Images Show How Perry Detention Ponds Performed
These aerial images taken shortly after noon today when the rain stopped show that:
The detention ponds are starting to do their work and hold back water.
That kept the level in Taylor Gully manageable
The overflow spillway between S2 and the concrete-lined channel was apparently not needed.
However, the images also show that:
Portions of the detention pond walls severely eroded and appear to have collapsed in places.
The water in the N1 pond overcame temporary dirt barricades sending water and silt down to N2.
The newly excavated N2 was entirely covered with water for the first time. It also received a significant amount of erosion.
N3 merges with Taylor Gully to form one large detention pond that holds water all the way from the northern end of the pond to the county line.
Rain has halted construction for the last two days and could delay it into next week.
Expanded, giant N2 detention pond was covered entirely with water for first time.Looking West toward western border of Woodridge Village.However, erosion re-deposited large amounts of soil within the pond. Looking North along Western Border of Woodridge Village.Rainwater entering the site from Joseph street in Porter (center left) shows by comparison how much silt the Perry water held. Looking north along western border of Woodridge Village.Still looking north, but farther up western border, you can see silt slumping into ditch.Looking SE toward Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest from the NW corner of site. Water coming in N1 pond from left exited right, down the western border. Water washed out a temporary dirt barrier that appeared designed to hold water in the pond.Looking east. Note erosion from former utility corridor on left that has turned into a new drainage ditch along northern edge of property. Looking at western wall of N3 which runs along eastern border of Woodridge Village.Another portion of the western wall of N3 shows severe erosion.Standing water from rest of property is slowly making its way into detention ponds.Looking South along eastern border toward Taylor Gully. At present, N3 (bottom left) simply merges with the concrete channel by S2 (top right). It appears to have nothing to control the outflow.Looking north along eastern border. Silt fences prove inadequate at stopping erosion. In fact, most of site has no silt fences.
More Rain Likely Tonight
Jeff Lindner, Harris County meteorologist, says that today’s wet pattern should remain in place through the weekend, contrary to earlier predictions that saw rain chances ending by Friday.
Storms currently in the Gulf near Corpus Christi are tracking toward Houston late tonight and Friday morning. They will probably not be as severe as this morning’s storms. With that said…the air mass remains tropical over the region and excessive rainfall rates of 2-3 inches per hour will be possible, warns Lindner.
As of 6 p.m. Thursday, the National Weather Service decided NOT to issue another flash flood watch for tonight, but stay alert to see if a more significant threat may develop.
Expect rainfall amounts of generally 1-2 inches tonight with isolated totals of 3-4 inches.
To Get Up-to-the-Minute Forecasts and Stream Alerts
1031 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 280 since Imelda
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/2020/06/20200625-DJI_0004.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2020-06-25 18:39:552020-06-25 18:44:17Perry Detention Ponds Pass First Modest Test, But Eroded Badly
