Tag Archive for: Perry homes

Why You Never Want to Buy a Home Built Over Wetlands

The pictures below show why you should never, ever buy a home built over wetlands.

Standing water after one month with only an inch of rain. Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village in Montgomery County, Texas.

Standing Water One Inch of Rain A Month Before

I took these shots while circling Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village construction site in Montgomery County, Texas, on 12/3/2019. At that point, the nearest USGS rain gage (at US59 and the San Jacinto West Fork) indicated we had only had one inch of rain in the previous month. The most recent rain at the time was a quarter inch three weeks prior!

That’s far below the normal 4.3 inches of rainfall for November in Houston. So it was less than one quarter of the normal rainfall. Still, the land held standing water in numerous places, despite having been cleared and graded for months.

Soupy soil on the northeast portion of Perry Homes Woodridge Village.

Standing water should have soaked in long before I took these shots. But when you build a development on wetlands, that’s not always true.

This article by the National Wildlife Federation details the problems of building homes over wetlands: shifting slabs, damp basements, cracked driveways, mold, erosion, clogged storm drains, downstream flooding and more.

These pictures vividly illustrate how unstable wetlands soil can be.

Looking west over the northern portion of Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village
Southwestern portion of Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village fronting Woodland Hills Drive.

They remind me of the famous saying the Bible.

Matthew 7:24-27: Build Your House on the Rock

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Area classified as wetlands in the USGS National Wetlands Inventory within Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village.
Perry Homes’ contractors mired in more muck on the northern portion of Woodridge Village where wetlands once stood.

Five Previous Developers Passed on This Property

When Perry Homes bought this property, five other developers had previously bought and sold it without developing anything. Perhaps they realized the dangers once they investigated it more thoroughly. Regardless, one of Perry Homes’ subsidiaries bought the land and the company wound up in a literal quagmire.

That sinking feeling you get when you try to build over wetlands

Environmental Survey Not on File with Montgomery County

Perry Homes claims to have done an environmental survey. But if they did, they did not file it with Montgomery County. A FOIA request with the county turned up no such document. A survey, performed by a private consultant, cleared the way for developing this property.

Normally, the Army Corps would investigate wetlands and determine whether they fell under their jurisdiction. If so, developing them would have required permitting and possible mitigation.

That process would have taken much longer and Perry Homes was trying to beat the clock. They were trying to start development before new, stricter Atlas-14 regulations took effect that would have required 40% more detention.

The Corps is currently investigating this case but has not yet issued a decision as to whether Perry Homes’ consultant erred.

Regardless of what the Army Corps decides, these pictures should be a sobering reminder of the dangers of building over wetlands.

Beware of Dry-Season Sales

Wetlands do not necessarily remain wet year around. Unscrupulous developers often sell homes in the dry season without revealing the presence of former wetlands. But water naturally drains to these low-lying areas. Buying a home in one could turn into a perpetual headache.

If you are concerned about investing your life savings in such an area, both the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service keep national databases of wetlands.

USGS National Wetlands Inventory showing Perry Homes Woodridge Village

Be a wise man or woman. Consult these databases before you buy a home to determine whether your property was once wetlands.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/15/2019

838 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 87 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.

More Delays on Fixing Perry Homes’ Drainage Debacle Increases Risk of Yet More Elm Grove Flooding

At the current rate of work, Perry Homes could easily take 3-4 years to complete the detention ponds on its Woodridge Village development. The chances of getting another rain event like May 7th during that period? 27.1% if it takes Perry 3 years and 34.4% if it takes 4.

Perry has moved only a few shovels full of dirt since early August to expand detention capacity. That’s when construction activity came to a virtual standstill.

Despite an October 17th letter from Perry Homes’ lawyer to the City Attorney promising to accelerate work on detention ponds, the company has not.

This significantly raises Perry Homes’ legal liability if Elm Grove floods again.

How to Determine Cumulative Probabilities

How do you compile those statistics? Start by classifying the storm. The May 7th storm that flooded approximately 200 homes was a 10-year event, according to USGS, NOAA and National Weather Service statistics below.

Hourly rainfall totals for the USGS gage at US59 and the West Fork. Whether you consider six inches in six hours or 3.6 inches in one hour, May 7th storm still classifies as a 10-year event.

Next, figure the cumulative probability of it happening again during a given time period. If you ask, “What are the chances of another May 7th happening in any year,” the answer is always 10%. But if you ask, “What are the chances of another May 7th happening in the next three-years,” the answer is different.

You calculate the cumulative probability using the following formula:

Probability of at least one 10-year storm in next 3 years = 1 – (9/10)3rd = 27.1%. Four years equals 34.4%.

The possibility exists that the rainfall rate may have been slightly higher in Elm Grove on May 7th. But these are official statistics and conservative for the purposes of estimating risk. They don’t even include the chances of getting hit by even larger storms in the same year (as we did with Imelda).

Legal Risk of Not Mitigating Flood Risk

Perry Homes has shown little desire to mitigate flood risk by expanding detention capacity at Woodridge – even after promising the City of Houston it would do so.

After clearcutting virtually the entire site, Perry had installed only 7% of the required detention ponds when the May 7th flood hit and only 23% by the time Imelda hit on September 19. Since then? Virtually nothing!

Where three detention ponds should be on the northern portion of Woodridge Village. 77% of detention capacity is still missing after four months of inactivity.

What Perry Homes Has and Hasn’t Done

Since the October 17th letter laying out a 26-month timetable for completing work on Woodridge detention ponds, Perry Homes HAS:

  • Removed several brush piles from their northern property (shown above)
  • Slightly widened 300 feet of Taylor Gully
  • Concreted a portion of the 300 feet (see below).
  • Moved a small amount of dirt from the S2 pond that eroded into it back up onto the banks (see below).
  • Spread some grass seed on the northern portion of the development (see two photos below)
Perry Homes moves eroded dirt from S2 detention pond back onto banks on 12/3/2019.
The area where the N3 detention pond should be now has a small amount of grass. Photo by Jeff Miller.

Perry Homes has NOT:

  • Finished work on the S2 detention pond.
  • Started work on other detention ponds.
  • Managed to keep ponding water from reducing the volume of S2.
  • Established grass on pond banks to reduce erosion as regulations require.
  • Finished the spillway into S2 from Taylor Gully.
  • Fenced in their detention ponds as regulations require.
  • Installed maintenance roads around the ponds as regulations require.
  • Released its internal investigation into the causes of Elm Grove flooding as it promised Channel 2 news.
Section 7 of Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual shows many items still missing from Perry Homes’ existing detention ponds.
Close up of spillway into S2 pond and its north bank as of 12/5/2019. Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller.

Perry Homes Increases Risk to Residents and Itself

Since August when Perry Homes virtually stopped working on Woodridge, the company has done nothing to allay the major causes of flooding: clearcutting and lack of detention. It has slow-walked this project. Whatever its motivation, Perry Homes has significantly increased the risk of flooding Elm Grove residents again. In doing so, it also increases its own risks.

If Perry Homes does flood Elm Grove again, its slowdown and disregard for the promises it made to the City in its October 17th letter could prove the difference between negligence, gross negligence and punitive damages.

According to the Sawaya Law Firm, “Gross negligence is the extreme indifference to or reckless disregard for the safety of others. Gross negligence is more than simple carelessness or failure to act. It is willful behavior done with extreme disregard for the health and safety of others. It is conduct likely to cause foreseeable harm.”

Kathy Perry Britton knows that slow-walking the expansion of detention capacity will increase the risk of another major storm hitting Elm Grove before she finishes. But I doubt her lawyers are telling her that risk could be as high as 34%.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/15/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

838 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 87 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.

Perry Homes Fails to Meet Own First Deadline For Additional Woodridge Village Detention

At the Kingwood Town Hall meeting on October 17th, 2019, Mayor Sylvester Turner read a letter from lawyer J. Carey Gray who represents Perry Homes and its subsidiaries against hundreds of flooded Elm Grove homeowners. The letter laid out a timetable – extending more than 2 years into the future – for completion of the detention ponds on the troubled Woodridge Village subdivision. The first step: finish the S2 pond, which was already substantially complete. Perry Homes gave itself 30-45 days for that task. As nonsensical as that sounded on October 17, they managed to miss the deadline … by not showing up … until after the deadline. 

Deadline Expired Yesterday With No Improvements to Pond

Yesterday marked 45 days since Lawyer Gray delivered his letter to the Houston City Attorney. Since then crews have worked several days on adding a concrete lining to a small portion of Taylor Gully. They also replaced some eroded dirt along the northern edge of S2. Still incomplete, however are: 

  • Excavation of the remaining dirt
  • Grass to stabilize the soil on the banks
  • A perimeter road required by the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual
  • Lining for a severely eroded spillway between Taylor Gully and S2
  • Drainage of the detention pond
  • Backslope interceptor swales

Photos Demonstrate Lack of Progress

Here’s how the pond looked in September, two days after Imelda.

Status of S2 Pond on September 21, 2019, two days after Imelda
Status of S2 Pond on November 4, 2019, two and a half weeks after J. Carey Gray’s letter to City Attorney.

Here’s what it looks like today, 46 days after J. Carey Gray’s letter to the City Attorney. They had made some progress on lining the Taylor Gully channel behind the pond. But as far as the pond itself went, there was a lone excavator moving dirt that had eroded into the pond back up on the banks. That’s because they failed to establish grass there.

One day after the deadline for completing the S2 detention pond, Perry Homes had a lone excavator pushing eroded dirt back up onto the banks. Photo taken 12/3/2019.
Photo taken 12/3/2019. Hardly a bustling construction site with contractors racing to meet deadlines.

Only 735 more days before all the detention ponds are complete … assuming they can meet any of their own deadlines.

Questions Raised by Lack of Performance

The failure to meet this first deadline raises questions:

  • Is Perry Homes sincere? Can they ever be trusted for anything ever again?
  • Has Perry Homes lost its ability to deliver? Is the company financially crippled beyond repair?
  • Did Sylvester Turner extract terms from Perry Homes designed to get him through the general election?
  • Or did Perry Homes play Sylvester Turner to torpedo his chances in a runoff election?
  • Did Kathy Perry Britton, CEO of Perry Homes, think no one would remember?
  • Is Perry Homes holding the threat of future flooding over Elm Grove residents to force a settlement of their lawsuits?

If it’s the latter and there’s another flood – with this record of foot dragging – they’ve nuked themselves. It’s a Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School case study that will go down in the Annals of Corporate Stupidity. 

What can explain this level of ineptitude?

This has to be a huge embarrassment for the City of Houston and Montgomery County. It’s also a PR debacle for Sylvester Turner … in the middle of a hotly contested runoff election. Turner can’t do anything about that now except to tell the City Attorney to sharpen his spurs.

But if I were MoCo, I would claim Perry Homes’ performance bond and finish the work myself. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/3/2019

826 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 75 since Imelda

The thoughts expressed 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.

What Went Wrong, Part V: How Woodridge Village “Soiled” Perry Homes’ Reputation

Before Perry Homes bought the ill-fated land now known as Woodridge Village, it hired a company called Terracon to sample soils and submit a geotechnical analysis. Their objective: to see whether the land was suitable for residential development. Perry also hired LJA Engineering to analyze drainage. However, it appears that LJA did not consider Terracon’s findings when it modeled runoff (see Section 1.4 of LJA’s report).

LJA also assumed that “sandy loam” covered the entire site when the National Resources Conservation Service soil database shows sandy loam covers only 60 percent. The Terracon report, however, never even mentions “sandy loam.”

Different Findings Could Have Skewed Runoff Analysis

Both the different characterizations of soils and their extent could have skewed the results of LJA’s runoff analysis.

LJA said the soil was “fine sandy loam,” everywhere, period. Terracon bored holes to 20 feet at four locations and found mostly clay-based soils. Terracon did, however, find “sandy silt” with “clay pockets” in the first foot of ONE of their borings.

According to the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), clay, sand and loam absorb rainfall at vastly different rates that can approach or even exceed 10X.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA

The NRCS site above does show “sandy loam” on 60% of Perry Homes’ property. However, the NRCS sampling technique usually involves a shovel. They appear to classify primarily surface soils (not surprising for the Department of AGRICULTURE).

That’s why NRCS clearly states that the infiltration rates above only apply to the first two inches of rain during an event. After that, the water may percolate down to another, less permeable layer of soil, such as the clay that Terracon found. At that point, fully saturated ground could force additional rainfall hitting the surface to pond or, if the land slopes, run off. That’s exactly what happened on May 7th and September 19th this year when Elm Grove flooded from Woodridge Village runoff.

According to NRCS, “Soil survey interpretations are rarely suitable for such onsite evaluations as homesites without further evaluations at the specific site.” 

But Terracon’s preliminary investigation sampled only four widely spaced spots at the perimeter of the property. None coincided with the locations of planned detention ponds, known wetlands, or streets. Only one even came close to a future home site. And the Montgomery County Engineer’s office has no record of Terracon performing additional work on the Woodridge site.

Terracon’s sample locations.

Also note that while NRCS shows sandy loam on 60% of the site, LJA assumes uniform distribution everywhere. That could also have skewed LJA’s computer modeling. NRCS showed that another 33% of the site (see below) contained soil consistent with wetlands. Wetlands don’t typically absorb water, often because of clay underlying them.

Wetland-Type Soils on ONE THIRD of Property “Overlooked”

A top geologist retired from one of the world’s largest oil companies sampled the soil at one of Terracon’s borehole sites shortly after the May 7th storm and confirmed Terracon’s findings as to surface soil type – mostly clay.

He also says, “The presence of clay close to the surface can cause water to pond and lead to the formation of wetlands wherever you find depressions in the land.” And in fact, the USGS National Wetlands Inventory shows extensive wetlands on the northern portion of the site.

USGS National Wetlands Inventory map of Perry Home’s site.

It’s not clear where LJA found its soil information; they don’t specify. But if it was from NRCS, they should have been alarmed by the presence of hydric topsoils on ONE THIRD of the property. Hydric soils are one of the defining ingredients of wetlands. Compare with map below, taken from the NRCS site. SosA and SouA are soil types typical of wetlands.

SosA, Sorter-Tarkington complex, 0 1 percent slopes {Hydric, with inclusions that are non-hydric} and SouA, Sorter-Urban land complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes {Hydric, with inclusions that are non-hydric} comprise approximately 29% and 3.6% of the site respectively.

Building homes over wetlands is dangerous because shifting soil can crack foundations. Wetlands also typically serve as collection points for water.

But LJA never mentions wetlands and the Terracon borehole sampling sites came nowhere near the wetlands on the property. Terracon spaced them widely around the perimeter as you can see from the site map with the red lines above.

Groundwater Levels Not Mentioned In LJA Drainage Analysis

LJA, had it read the Terracon report, might have also been concerned by the discovery of ground water at 15 feet, more than a half mile from Taylor Gully. At Taylor Gulley, contractors hit ground water at about 10 feet when excavating the S2 detention pond. But the pond was supposed to hold 15 feet of runoff. That means ground water reduced its capacity by a third. Even worse, a pond by N3 has had standing water near the ground SURFACE for months!

Note the man-made rectangular pond in the upper right. It has been that full since it first appeared in Google Earth satellite images almost a year ago. That’s not a good sign for another area designated to hold a major detention pond (N3).

That means these ponds will never be able to achieve their promised detention capacities with their current dimensions. There just isn’t enough depth. Engineers measure detention capacity from the top of any standing water, not the bottom of the pond.

More Curiosities Re: Testing and Reports

How strange that LJA’s drainage analysis never once mentions the words “water table” or “groundwater”! Especially when detention ponds are a central feature of the report and mentioned 42 times. LJA never mentions “retention” ponds once, although J. Carey Gray, the high-powered litigator representing Perry Homes, called the ponds that in his letter to the City. For the record, detention ponds have no permanent standing water; retention ponds do.

The first thing you notice about the Terracon report: the title says PRELIMINARY. Terracon also put “preliminary” at the top of every page. And repeated it 35 times within the report. Sometimes as many as three times in a single paragraph. Terracon also specifically recommended several followup tests. But if they were done, the Montgomery County Engineers office says it has no record of them.

Five Previous Developers Sold Site Rather than Develop It

At Thanksgiving Dinner yesterday, we had three engineers at the table. I posed the question, “Do you ever reach a point in projects when you say to yourself, “We shouldn’t do this,” as opposed to “How can we do this?”

The general consensus: There’s always a way to engineer a solution…if you don’t consider cost.

I wonder if that’s why five previous developers who owned this site didn’t do anything with it. They included Lennar, Kingwood 575, Reddy Partnership/Kingwood, Woodbridge 268, and Concourse Development.

It could be that they were just holding it and hoping to flip it at a higher price. Land generally appreciates faster than the rate of inflation. But it could also be that they investigated the cost of developing it more closely than Perry Homes did.

Below: the sales histories for the two major pieces of land that comprise Woodridge Village.

Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District
Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District

Of all the curiosities associated with this development, the sales history ranks near the top. Concourse held the property for less than a week before selling it to Perry Homes’ subsidiary, Figure Four Development LTD.

Perry Homes even commissioned and received Terracon’s Geotechnical report BEFORE Concourse bought the property. But that’s the subject for another post at another time. What was that about?

The important thing to note for now: When you’re selling dirt, it pays to know what kind of dirt you’re selling.

As Perry Homes Drags Out Court Case, It Could Incur More Liability

The once-proud Perry Homes is now buried under a mountain of law suits alleging that their actions flooded hundreds of homes…not once, but twice…in six months.

As Perry Homes drags these lawsuits out, Kathy Perry Britton could expose her father’s company to enough liability to bring it down. Can you imagine how a jury would react if Elm Grove flooded a third time when so many regulations have been flaunted? And when Perry has made no further attempt at mitigation since early August? I can.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/29/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 71 after 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.

What Went Wrong, Part IV: Perry Homes Develops Flood Plain That Wasn’t

Chapter 9 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual discusses development in flood plains. Perry Homes and LJA Engineering somehow “overlooked” many of the points in this chapter. A flood plain ran through the property, but FEMA had not yet mapped it. LJA used that as an excuse to claim none existed.

Notice how flood plain mapping stops at county line. Perry Homes has the undeveloped property along and above the county line. Color code: Cross-hatched = floodway; aqua = hundred year flood plain; brown = 500-year flood plain. Source: MoCo Maps

Unfortunately, physical boundaries of flood plains do not observe political boundaries. Taylor Gully bisects this property, if you look at the flood maps, it magically defies flooding on the MoCo side of the county line.

Montgomery County Regulations Affecting Flood Plains

Below are guidelines from the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual that Perry Homes would have had to follow had the property been mapped.

From Section 9.1.1 Floodplain Regulations:

“No fill or encroachment is permitted within the 100-year floodway which will impair its ability to discharge the 100-year peak flow rate except where the effect on flood heights has been fully offset by stream improvements.” [Emphasis added.]

“Placement of fill material within the floodplain requires a permit from the County Drainage Administrator. Appropriate fill compaction data and hydrologic and hydraulic data are required before a permit will be issued.”

From Section 9.1.2 Floodplain Development Guidelines and Procedures

“Construction within the floodway is limited to structures which will not obstruct the 100-year flood flow unless fully offsetting conveyance capacity is provided.”

  • “The existing designated 100-year floodplain and floodway should be plotted on a map of the proposed development.”
  • “The effect of the proposed development and the encroachment into the flood plain area should be incorporated into the hydraulic model and the resulting flood plain determined.”
  • “Careful consideration should be given to providing an accurate modeling of effective flow areas taking into account the expansion and contraction of the flow.”
  • “Once it has been determined that the proposed improvements adequately offset the encroachment, a revised floodway for the stream must be computed and delineated.”
From Section 9.2 Downstream Impact Analysis

“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.”

What LJA Said About Perry Homes’ Project

On Page 1-2 of its Drainage Analysis, LJA Engineering explicitly states, “As shown on Exhibit 3, the proposed development is outside the 100-year floodplain.”

Phyllis Mbewe, P.e., CFM, LJA Project Manager – Hydrology and Hydraulics
LJA Exhibit 3 shows the floodplain stopping at the county line. LJA also did its best to make the .2 percent risk area blend into the area of minimal flood risk. This visually minimizes the amount of floodplain bordering MoCo, so the abrupt stoppage at the county line becomes less visible. Source: LJA.

Ms. Mbewe then states in her conclusion, “Based on these findings, the proposed development of the 268-acre tract creates no adverse drainage impacts for events up to and including the 100-year event.” [Emphasis added.]

What Does “No Adverse Impact” Really Mean?

People often twist the definition of terms you think are self evident. Especially in legal, technical, and political contexts.

To me, “No Adverse Impact” should mean, “Downstream people who didn’t flood before won’t flood after development.” That’s what section 9.2 states explicitly.

But when I talked to a flood professional, I got a different answer. To that person, “no adverse impact” meant, “the amount of water flowing across the property did not increase after development.” Much narrower! And seemingly contradictory to the spirit of 9.2.

“Floodplain” Definition Shocked Me

But that person’s definition of floodplain really shocked me. To me, floodplain means “the area adjacent to a stream that fills with floodwater after a very heavy rain.” But the professional told me I was WRONG. To the professional, a floodplain was “an area on a map that FEMA designated a floodplain for insurance purposes.”

In that person’s mind, because FEMA had never mapped the area in question, a floodplain did NOT EXIST. Whether or not the area flooded!

To me, that’s like saying an apple is something you see in a Kroger’s flyer, not something you eat. We’re talking about the difference between a symbol of something and the reality of it.

This discussion proved once again that words and phrases have different meanings that depend on the social context of usage.

In the minimum compliance environment of Montgomery County, LJA and Perry Homes argued that there was no floodplain. They found someone in the county engineer’s office who agreed with them…or was told to agree with them.

FYI, the official FEMA definition says, “Any land area susceptible to being inundated by floodwaters from any source.”

Consequences of Overly Narrow Definition

So did Elm Grove flood because Perry Homes, LJA and Montgomery County did not enforce the floodplain regs in section 9.2 of the Drainage Criteria Manual?

  • They certainly did not offset peak flows with stream improvements.
  • They did not plot the REAL-WORLD floodway and floodplain on a map of the proposed development (see above).
  • LJA did not incorporate encroachment into the floodplain in its hydraulic modeling, because they denied a floodplain existed.
  • Neither did LJA provide “an accurate modeling of effective flow areas taking into account the expansion and contraction of the flow.”
  • Finally, LJA did not compute, revise and delineate the floodway for the stream.

Had they done all these things, perhaps people would have seen that downstream homes that had never flooded were now subject to greater flood risk. But that’s really something for the jury to decide. And it would require FEMA to model the floodplain after the fact.

But like the narrow definition of floodplain, this whole discussion symbolizes a bigger problem.

How Do You Fix a Permissive, Minimum-Compliance Environment?

LJA had an obligation to its client and a higher one to the public that it ignored in my opinion.

Perry Homes could have demanded honest answers from its engineers, not the ones they wanted to hear.

FEMA could label areas like Woodridge Village “UNMAPPED”. This would send a signal to potential home buyers if sellers tell them they’re NOT in a floodplain. That might make developers think twice.

Home buyers need to demand integrity in this process. They need to ask better questions. They need to learn more about flooding.

But at the end of the day, Montgomery County Commissioners must define the kind of future they want. Do they want constant flooding? Or not. Because right now, they’re competing with other areas for new development on the basis of willful blindness and self-serving definitions.

Thirty years down the road, when it’s too late to fix the infrastructure problems they ignore today, MOCO residents will be paying the price. Some, who have flooded repeatedly, might argue they already are.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/26/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

820 Days after Harvey and 69 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.

A Simple Proposal to Fix NFIP, Reduce Elm Grove’s Flood Risk, Save Taxpayer Dollars, and Force Perry Homes to Follow Rules

This morning, I was talking to a friend, John Knoezer, about flooding in Elm Grove when he suddenly blurted out, “You know, the National Flood Insurance people should sue Perry Homes and turn that Woodridge Village into a giant detention pond.”

I knew John had a genius for heating and air conditioning. But I had no idea he also had a genius for politics, too. Boom. There it was. One simple idea to fix multiple problems. The NFIP budget deficit. Flood mitigation. Mushrooming tax bills. And rogue developers who ignore flood regulations at others’ peril. And all it requires is getting NFIP to act like any other insurance company.

Get NFIP to Behave Like a Normal Insurance Company

If the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) sued the people responsible for flooding Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and Porter, it could likely recover enough payouts to fix the lack of detention in Woodridge Village, Perry Homes’ troubled development in Montgomery County.

All we’re really talking about is getting NFIP to behave like a normal commercial insurance company. For instance, if someone rear-ends your car, your insurance company sues the person who did it (or their insurance company) to recover the amount of your claim. But not NFIP, according to everyone I’ve talked to.

Elm Grove after the May 7th storm, where block after block, homes were being gutted. Several feet of water from Perry Homes Woodridge Village development inundated homes that had never flooded before.

NFIP currently carries a $20 billion debt to taxpayers. Going after egregious companies that contribute to repeat flooding could reduce that amount.

It might also get those rogue companies to behave more cautiously and responsibly in the future. That could reduce future claims and NFIP’s overhead.

Imagine all the taxpayer dollars that could have been saved if Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and Porter had never flooded.

NFIP has already paid out twice this year to hundreds of flooded homeowners. And those homeowners could easily flood again and again. Because Perry Homes is doing NOTHING to reduce future flooding! Nothing incentivizes Perry Homes to reduce flooding.

NFIP has created no deterrent to flooding neighbors. So why would developers care if they do?

Another Benefit: Recovering Money in Court to Fix the Problem

If the repair costs downstream from Perry Home’s Woodridge Village total $100 million and just half the people had NFIP insurance, that’s $50 million that NFIP might recover from Perry Homes in court.

That money could easily buy the Woodridge Village land and construct a massive detention pond that would prevent future flooding.

Such lawsuits, if won, could also help reduce future taxpayer-subsidized flood-mitigation expenditures, most of which the federal government helps underwrite in some manner. But that’s just for starters.

Get Developers to Stop Pushing the Flood-Risk Envelope

Going after flagrant developers might help in another way, too. It might change the economics of pushing the flood-risk envelope. Right now, the economics favor those who push it hardest and furthest.

Developers have no disincentive to keep pushing these envelopes. NFIP bears all the flood risk; developers make all the profit.

Virtually all the incentives in this process foster behavior that worsens flooding.

We’re giving a competitive advantage to developers who worsen flooding. If NFIP were to sue a developer occasionally, it might change that.

Create Incentives to Follow Rules

In this case, had Perry Homes followed the rules and developed Woodridge the way it said it was going to, hundreds of homeowners would likely not have flooded.

Before Perry started developing the property, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flood victims had weathered many storms as bad as May 7 and Imelda without flooding. So had people in Montgomery County on the western edge of the development where block after block of homes flooded that had never flooded before. See map of that area below and note the number of homes that flooded during the Harvey, Memorial Day, Tax Day and 1994 floods – ZERO!

According to residents, not one home flooded in this neighborhood west of Woodridge Village flooded before May 7, 2019. However, on May 7th, the vast majority of homes did flood…after Woodridge Village contractors altered the drainage going out of the subdivision. Flood data from Montgomery County. Flood Story Map hosted by ESRI.

So far, we’ve found numerous instances where Perry Homes did NOT follow Montgomery County or State of Texas regulations. People downstream paid the price.

More than 200 homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded in May and more than 300 again in September.

For details, see installments to date in these “What Went Wrong” posts:

  • Part I – Overview
  • Part II – Lack of Erosion and Sediment Controls
  • Part III – The Detention Pond Catastrophe

If NFIP successfully sued the developer, the precedent might encourage all developers everywhere to follow the rules instead of bending them.

Save Tax Dollars

The precedent of NFIP suing a developer might also deter other developers in the future from pushing flood-prone projects or developing them in ways that contribute to flooding. So it could further reduce NFIP payouts and overhead. That could save even more dollars for this taxpayer subsidized program.

Bypass County Commissioners Who Refuse to Enforce Their Own Regulations

Another benefit of John’s brilliant suggestion: it eliminates a political battle with Montgomery County Judges and Commissioners – which may be unwindable for people in another county. Just get NFIP to make an example of a high-profile developer, such as Perry Homes. That might change some developers’ behavior who operate under the protective cover of local politicians. Those politicians compete for development dollars by not enforcing their own regulations. And that’s a huge part of the problem. Especially when a county line divides the perpetrators and victims as it does in this case.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/26/2019, with inspiration from John Knoezer

819 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 68 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.

What Went Wrong, Part III: Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village Detention Pond Catastrophe

Note: This is the third in a five part series about What Went Wrong in Woodridge Village that may have contributed to flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. It focuses on Detention Ponds.

Section 7 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual cautions, “The introduction of impervious cover and improved runoff conveyance serves in many cases to increase flood peaks quite dramatically over those for existing conditions.” And that’s exactly what happened in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest in May and September of this year. Two subdivisions that had never flooded before were inundated with several feet of water from Woodridge Village.

Perry Homes failed to observe numerous regulations in the Drainage Criteria Manual including provisions for:

  • Erosion control measures such as pond linings, revegetation, backslope swales
  • Maintenance roads
  • Increases in downstream flooding
  • Geotechnical reports for detention ponds
  • Drainage of detention ponds

Critically, they also failed to construct all the detention ponds they promised.

Less than a Quarter of Detention Ponds Built

When listing factors that contributed to the flooding, the absence of several promised detention ponds should rank near the top.

  • Before the May flood, only one of five detention ponds (S1) was substantially complete and it provided only 7% of the promised detention capacity.
  • Before the September flood, contractors substantially completed a second detention pond (S2) that added another 16% of promised detention capacity.
  • Since then, no work has been done on additional excavation to protect against flooding.
While clearcutting ALL of the land, Perry Homes installed only PART of the detention.

According to LJA Engineering, Perry Homes was supposed to develop the project in two phases and clearcut only 30 acres in the northern section during Phase 1. However, something changed. Instead, Perry Homes clearcut the entire northern section. And they still haven’t excavated any of the three detention ponds there.

By May 2019, only S1 was substantially complete. By September, S2 was also substantially complete, but overwhelmed.

Had Perry Homes installed all the detention that it promised, the site should have detained a foot of rainfall. But it didn’t. When Imelda came along, it was like trying to pour 100 gallons of water into a 23 gallon jug. Water spilled out of the development into adjacent streets and homes.

Erosion Control Measures Missing for Detention Ponds

Section 7.2.7 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual details Erosion Control Measures for Detention Facilities. It states:

“The erosion potential for a detention basin is similar to that of an open channel. For this reason the same types of erosion protection are necessary, including the use of backslope swales and drainage systems (as outlined In SECTION 6), proper revegetation and pond surface lining where necessary. Proper protection must especially be provided at pipe outfalls into the facility, pond outlet structures and overflow spillways where excessive turbulence and velocities will cause erosion.” (See page page 123 of pdf, numbered 113 in doc.)

Revegetation?
Not much grass in S1 (right of the road) or the area that drains into it. All aerial photos below taken on 11/4/2019.
Not much grass on the slopes of S2 either, although Perry Homes did make an ineffective attempt to hydromulch the south (right) border.
No Protection for Overflow Spillway
Perry Homes quality! This spillway from Taylor Gully (right) was supposed to have a grass lining, but still does not. Picture taken 11/4/2019. As of 11/21/19 work still had not started on the lining. Perry Homes has done virtually no work on this pond for three months. However, they did start lining the channel on the right today.
Backslope Interceptor Swales?
The northern edge of the S2 pond has no backslope interceptor swale. As a consequence, water from Taylor Gully at the top of this frame flows over the edge of the pond and erodes it. This may not be a sustainable solution. In the long run, the Gully could erode its way into the pond from the north (top of the frame).

Maintenance Road Missing at Critical Point

Section 7.2.8 talks about Maintenance of Detention Facilities. It states, “A 30-foot wide access and maintenance easement shall be provided around the entire detention pond.” The most critical place in the entire chain of detention ponds, the final outflow culvert into Taylor Gully, has no room for a maintenance road. That’s because when they installed the required backslope interceptor swale, the only place left for it was the maintenance road. That’s planning for you!

S2 has no maintenance easement or road at final outfall into Taylor Gully. The backslope interceptor swale takes up that space.

No Increase in Downstream Flood Levels Allowed

Section 7.3 talks about DETENTION DESIGN PROCEDURES. It clearly lays out the design goal when it says…

No increase in downstream flow rates or flood levels will be allowed.

Further down in this section, the regulations state: “The maximum 100-year water surface elevation in all detention facilities shall be a minimum of 1 foot below the minimum top of bank elevation of the basin.”

Judging from this video shot by Edy and Ricki Cogdill during the May 7th storm, I would say Perry Homes didn’t meet that objective. It reminds me of that slime show on Nickelodeon, but in this case, the innocent bystanders got slimed.

No Geotechnical Report for Groundwater Level at Pond Sites

Section 7.5 discusses GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS. It says, “Before initiating final design of a detention pond, a detailed soils investigation by a geotechnical engineer should be undertaken.” Regulations state that the ground water investigation must be “at the proposed site.” Montgomery County has no record of such an investigation or report.

A company called Terracon prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Perry that addressed issues pertaining to utilities, road pavement and residential foundations. But it makes no mention of detention ponds.

The company took four widely spaced borings around the perimeter of the site that managed to miss all the detention pond locations. Significantly, they missed all the wetlands, too.

Page 17 of Terracon Report. Red lines added to improve visibility of locations.

MoCo Claims It Has No Further Geotechnical Reports

If Perry Homes did additional investigations into ground water on this site, Montgomery County says it doesn’t have them.

If no further investigations were conducted, this could be a fatal flaw affecting the economics of the entire development. Note the presence of standing water in the photo below.

S2 Pond (left), Taylor Gully (center), and area where N3 pond will go (right) all have standing water that will reduce their rated capacity.

The presence of standing water reduces the rated capacity of detention ponds and channels. Only the area above the standing water counts as capacity. Regulations say that these ponds should drain completely (see below).

Thus, S2 likely has lost a third of its designed capacity. N3, when eventually built, could fare worse. Note how close the water is to the surface in the small pond on the right.

If you can’t go deep to get your detention pond capacity, you have to go wide. And that will mean fewer homesites than the 896 they planned. This site might not even make economic sense for building homes.

Problems with Homes Built Over Wetlands

The presence of wetlands in the northern section, which the Terracon report never mentions, would also significantly reduce the site’s suitability for building homes.

This article describes the problems with homes built on wetlands. The title: “Caution: Building in a Wetland Can Be Hazardous to Your House.” A biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife service who investigated filled wetlands in Pennsylvania warned: “Build your house in a wetland, and you’ve got a hobby for the rest of your life. You will be fighting that water forever.” He discusses cracked foundations and also warns, “When wetlands are filled, the water that made them wet has to go somewhere. … the water likely is leaking into formerly dry homes of downstream property owners.”

I’m sure Perry Homes would divulge the presence of former wetlands to the future buyers of homes on this site. It’s the only ethical thing to do and Kathy Perry Britton, CEO, has standards to maintain.

Incomplete Drainage of Detention Ponds

Section 7.6 of the Drainage Criteria Manual addresses GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DETENTION POND CONSTRUCTION. It states:
“A pilot channel shall be provided in detention facilities to insure that proper and complete drainage of the storage facility will occur.” (Emphasis added.)

Complete drainage will likely never occur in S2 and N3 because of the high water table.

To excavate S2 to the required design depth, contractors had to continuously pump water out of it as they worked. It still retains water to this day.

Photo by Jeff Miller on June 2, three days after contractors started digging to the final depth. No surface linings were ever added to this portion of the pond per Section 7.2.7 of the MoCo Drainage Criteria Manual.
Photo taken on June 3 shows contractors were pumping water out of pond as they continued excavating.

If Perry Homes continues its Woodridge Village venture using its current plans, chances are, the company will never provide enough detention capacity for real world conditions. When modeling, their engineers did NOT use the current Atlas-14 rainfall statistics from NOAA.

The new statistics would require 40% more capacity to ensure downstream safety.

Where Does Perry Homes Go from here?

After ignoring regulations, hundreds of homes flooded. And they will flood again. Owning this site is like hanging a millstone around one’s neck. It could drown the entire company in perpetual litigation and debt.

Future Posts in this series will look at:

  • Contradictions in Perry Homes’ Plans
  • The Dirt on Perry Homes’ Soil Test
  • The Floodplain that Wasn’t

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

814 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 63 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.

What Went Wrong: First in a Five Part Series about Woodridge Village and Elm Grove Flooding

On May 7th and September 19th, floodwater poured out of the 268 clearcut acres of the Woodridge Village development in Montgomery County. It poured into the streets and homes of people who lived in Kingwood’s Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest. That should not have happened if everything had gone according to plan and by the book. This is the first in a series about what went wrong.

Clearcutting 188 Acres Instead of 30

Let’s start with paragraph 2 of the Drainage Impact Analysis letter from LJA Engineering to the Montgomery County Engineering Department.

In it, LJA promised that PHASE 1 would only include 30 acres on the northern part of the site. But contractors clearcut the ENTIRE northern section instead. That was approximately 188 acres. Without installing any detention ponds there.

The 30-acre mention is buried in the middle of a long paragraph. Frankly I read it several times and never snapped to its significance until Jeff Miller, an Elm Grove activist, rubbed my nose in it.

And, by the way, the 30 acres should have had 12.1 acre feet of detention, according to the plan. (See bottom of page 2 of the letter.) That equals the triangular area in the bottom left of the northern section. But in the May flood, there was nothing there to detain the water. That triangle is actually owned by Montgomery County and was excavated in 2006. One flood expert suggested that the area was already counted as detention for some other area, so it really shouldn’t count for Woodridge.

Of the three Woodridge sections outlined below, Phase One was supposed to include 58 acres in the southern (middle) section and 30 in the northern.
The northern section dwarfs the others.

Gone: Everything that Could Have Slowed Runoff

Gone were the trees, underbrush and wetlands to soak up and slow down runoff. Contractors cleared six times more than LJA Engineering planned. That was a game changer. Plus those 188 clearcut acres had the steepest grade on the property. And the drainage all funneled toward the homes that flooded. Oops! Or should I say, “Duh”?

Map of original drainage on site shows which way water funneled.

It might have been a good plan. But you have to follow the plan for it to work.

Act of God or Act of Man?

Perry Homes claimed the flooding was an Act of God. Funny, the word “bulldozer” never appears once in the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Torah, or Bhagavad Gita.

Next in “What Went Wrong” Series

Next up in this series:

  • Contradictions in Perry Homes Plans
  • Things Perry Homes Didn’t Do in the Montgomery County Drainage Manual
  • The Dirt on Perry Homes’ Soil Test
  • The Floodplain that Wasn’t

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/2019, with thanks to Jeff Miller

812 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 61 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.

Army Corps to Investigate Potential Wetland Violations on Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village Site

The Army Corps of Engineers is investigating whether Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors violated Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. The Corps has regulatory authority for any fill material dumped into waters of the U.S. Those include perennial tributaries and adjacent wetlands.

No Record of Request for Jurisdictional Determination

When developers encounter wetlands, normally they seek a jurisdictional determination from the Corps. They want to ensure they are not violating the Clean Water Act. However, neither Perry Homes nor their subsidiaries (PSWA and Figure Four Partners) apparently sought such a determination. Neither did LJA Engineering, according to Corps records.

In June, a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request filed with the Corps of Engineers turned up NO RECORDS of any such request for the Woodridge property. See below.

Army Corps response to June 5, 2019, request for records pertaining to a request for jurisdictional determination on Woodridge Village Wetlands.

The LJA Engineering Drainage Analysis never even mentions wetlands. Wetlands are highly protected because of their ability to filter and retain floodwater, among other things. This multipage article by the USGS describes all the functions of wetlands and legislation affecting them.

Elm Grove Director Requests Investigation

In October, 2019, Beth Guide, a director of the Elm Grove Homeowners Association, went a step further than my FOIA request. She asked the Corps to investigate the legality of the loss of Woodridge Village wetlands. On November 13, 2019, US Congressman Dan Crenshaw received a letter from the Corps stating that the Corps was, in fact, investigating Ms. Guide’s request.

Corps Seeking Access to Property

The Corps is currently contacting Perry Homes (or subsidiary, Figure Four Partners) for access to the site. The Corps characterized the investigation as “an open purported unauthorized activity investigation.”

Colonel Timothy R. Vail, the Corps’ District Commander said, “…we continue to gather all the facts to determine if there is a violation of any of our statutes and if so, determine what might be the appropriate resolution.”

Presence and Importance of Wetlands

Numerous residents near the property noted the wetlands in question. The wetlands also appear in the USGS National Wetlands Inventory.

From the USGS National Wetlands Inventory

For the full text of the letter from the Corps to Congressman Crenshaw, click here.

Ms. Guide believes loss of these wetlands played a role in three floods which struck Elm Grove on May 3, May 7 and September 19 of this year. Before the loss of the wetlands, none of the surrounding neighborhoods ever flooded, according to nearby neighbors. Some of them lived in their homes for more than 30 years.

Typically, wetland vegetation slows down runoff. On the other hand, clearcutting/filling wetlands accelerates runoff. This simple science experiment shows how.

Accelerating runoff reduces the time of accumulation for floodwaters. That means more water reaches ditches faster and at the same time; none is retained upstream. That, in turn, makes floods peak higher.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/16/2019

809 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 58 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.

Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village Investment Could Be Costliest Ever

Usually when you make an investment, the worst thing that could happen is that you lose all your principle. But Perry Homes could loose a hundred times more than they paid for Woodridge Village land. That takes special talent.

Out-of-Pocket Costs

The land that Woodridge Village sits on didn’t cost much; much of it was wetlands and many streams converged there. Regardless, a Perry Homes subsidiary, Figure Four Partners, bought the land. Montgomery County Appraisal District values the two main parcels at less than a million dollars. Together they comprise more than 80% of the 268-acre project. (See screen captures below from Montgomery County Appraisal District website.)

Real Costs Could Be 100X Greater

Now let’s look at the real costs to Perry. Just to screw up the land, they paid for:

  • An engineering study that underestimated drainage needs by at least 40%
  • Clearcutting and grading 268 acres
  • Filling in natural drainage
  • Excavating two detention ponds (out of five they promised)
  • Soil tests and a geotechnical report
  • A mile of pavement to the middle of nowhere
  • Two large box culverts
  • Storm drains

Let’s say that cost another five million.

But all of that contributed to the flooding of approximately 200 homes in May and 350 in September. Let’s assume the damage to each home totaled $100,000. That comes to about $55,000,000.

Furniture, appliances, rugs, window coverings and other contents? Let’s assume an average of $40,000. That would total another $22,000,000.

Let’s also assume that 300 cars flooded. Average cost – $30,000. Bingo. $9 million.

Now let’s estimate the reduced marketability of homes that flooded. To do this, let’s assume an average price of $200,000 per home and a 20% reduction. That would cost homeowners $40,000 each in the market value of their homes. That’s another $22,000,000.

And we haven’t even factored in the legal fees of J. Carey Gray, counselor extraordinaire.

If juries rule in favor of the flood victims, that million dollar investment could add up to more than $100 million in potential liabilities…before any penalties for negligence and/or gross negligence kick in.

Corps Now Investigating Wetland Violations

Perry Homes bought wetlands and must have thought that no one would notice when they filled them in. They didn’t even bother to request a jurisdictional determination from the Corps for the wetlands. That reduced costs even more. It’s a proven formula in business; minimize costs to maximize profits.

But perhaps Perry Homes went too far. People did notice. The wetlands that they conveniently ignored fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps. And the Corps is now investigating potential violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. That could get expensive all by itself.

Like Building Homes at the End of a Gunnery Range

It just keeps getting worse for Perry. This was kind of like buying land to build homes at the end of a gunnery range. A little risky.

But it’s too late to rethink that decision. No one will ever want to buy a home on this site. It’s less marketable than swampland near Chernobyl.

There’s another rule of thumb in business. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. And that’s exactly what Perry has done. They have stopped work on the site for months. Work on detention ponds that would help protect people downstream from future flooding is going undone.

That means the numbers above could balloon with the next big rain. Or a negligence ruling by a jury. Yep, we’re in double Jeopardy now.

Career-Limiting Moves

Whoever made the decision to develop Woodridge Village definitely made a CLM (career-limiting move). At this point, even Perry Homes employees not associated with the decision must worry about their Christmas turkeys. Few careers or companies survive blunders that become case studies for how not to do something.

Eroding Profit Margins

Because of faulty assumptions and corner cutting, Perry Homes put itself between a rock and a hard place. They’ve managed to turn a million dollar investment into a potential $100 million liability. They can’t develop this property profitably now. And they can’t sell it. Who would want to buy this land and inherit the liability every time a storm cloud floats by?

To protect downstream homes from flooding, they would have to expand the detention ponds by at least 40%. And that would eliminate so many homesites that costs could exceed income. I say “at least” because the issue is not just Atlas-14 compliance. While digging the S2 detention pond, contractors hit water that’s not going away.

The S2 Detention Pond has lost about 20-30% of its capacity. The bottom 3-5 feet have been filled with ground water since contractors started digging to the target depth.

That means they can’t achieve their detention goals by going deeper; they’ll have to go wider. And that will cut into marketable land even more.

Toxic for Perry Homes

Let’s face it. When Perry Homes bought this property, Kathy Perry Britton swallowed a poison pill. Woodridge Village now has a toxic reputation that will infect the rest of Perry Homes. No one will ever be able to trust anything Perry Homes says again.

Just imagine how bad this could get for Perry Homes if Montgomery County and the City of Houston really started scrutinizing their permit applications in the future.

But what to do with this land? If you’re Kathy Perry Britton trying to spit shine the legacy of dear old dad, you can’t keep it. And you can’t sell it. You can’t even give it away. No land conservancy organization would take it until the damage done to wetlands and streams was remediated. That could take decades.

The Real Value of Wetlands

However, there are two pieces of good news in this mess.

  • If Perry Homes implodes, it won’t take a lot of investors with it; the company is private.
  • Perry Homes may serve as a lesson to other developers and teach them that the real value of wetlands is their downstream legal costs.

Time To Be Decisive

Just remember, Ms. Britton. Historically, 85% of Houston floods are non-tropical. So if you think you have eight more months to figure this out, think again.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/15/2019

808 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 57 after 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.