Jason Webster, lead attorney for hundreds of Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and Porter plaintiffs in lawsuits arising from two floods in 2019, confirmed for ReduceFlooding.com that the defendants have reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs. Defendants in the Elm Grove lawsuits included Perry Homes; Figure Four Partners LTD.; PSWA, Inc; LJA Engineering; Double Oak Construction, Inc.; Rebel Contractors, Inc.; Texasite, LLC; and Concourse Development, LLC.
Settlement Comes Two Years After Second Flood
Confirmation of the settlement comes almost two years to the day after sheet flow from Woodridge Village flooded Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest for the second time in five months.
Webster says the settlement agreement prohibits disclosure of the terms, but he did say that it was “…resolved to our satisfaction.” Webster says he and co-counsel Kimberley Spurlock, who also represented plaintiffs in the lawsuits, “…still have to communicate with the clients on this and we have not done so yet as far as amounts. That has to be determined by a special master which has been appointed to administer the settlement.”
However, Webster added, “All plaintiffs who participated in the lawsuit will receive a settlement offer.”
Hints of Movement Toward an Agreement in Early August
I first caught wind of a potential settlement from updates to the Harris County District Clerks’ website when Webster and Spurlock moved to establish an Elm Grove Settlement Fund and appoint a Master-in-Chancery in early August. Then, on August 16, Judge Lauren Reeder approved both the Fund and the Chancery motions. However, two defendants, LJA and Rebel, still objected. Interestingly, the Rebel objection contained a reference that it was not a party to a global settlement with the other defendants.
Then yesterday, an unsigned trial preparation order showed up on the District Clerk’s website. I emailed Webster and later that day, he confirmed the settlement.
Facing a trial on the merits of the case often brings defendants to the settlement table when they realize delays are no longer possible. I have been on jury panels for several cases over the years. Interestingly, in every single instance, the defendants chose to settle when the jury panel walked into the room to begin the selection process.
The settlement should come as a welcome relief for many plaintiffs who were devastated financially by the repeat floods.
Elm Grove activist Jeff Miller had this to say about the settlement. “I am thrilled for those that suffered greatly and hope that this settlement will discourage future negligence by bad actors.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/10/2021
1473 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 722 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_71.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2021-09-10 15:15:392021-09-10 17:32:17Elm Grove Lawsuits Settled!
On December 17, 2020, Jason Webster and Kimberley Spurlock, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the 2019 Elm Grove lawsuits, added a ninth defendant in their eighth amended petition. The defendant is Storm Water Solutions, LLC at 16110 Hollister Street in Houston.
Complete List of Defendants
Defendants now include:
Perry Homes, LLC
Figure Four Partners, LTD
Concourse Development, LLC
Rebel Contractors, Inc.
Double Oak Construction, Inc.
LJA Engineering, Inc.
Storm Water Solutions, LLC
Who Was Responsible for What and When
The eighth amended petition provides an overview of who allegedly did what and when, before Elm Grove flooded on May 7th and September 19th last year when water from Woodridge Village invaded Elm Grove and flooded up to 600 homes.
The developer defendants hired LJA, which had prepared the drainage plans for Woodridge Village, to prepare bid documents, plans and specifications, all of which required a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all potential contractors. The developer defendants and LJA, through the municipal utility district, hired Rebel, Double Oak, and Texasite. Rebel and Double Oak then obtained the necessary permits for the SWPPP.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Sometime after that, the developers hired Storm Water Solutions to implement the SWPPP. However, they allegedly told Rebel and Double Oak that they did not have to comply with the specifications in the SWPPP.
One day after the May 7th flood, the developers hired Concourse to inspect the detention ponds on the development. Plaintiffs allege that Concourse did not advise the developer defendants to makes any changes. The plaintiffs also contend that ALL defendants failed to comply with the SWPPP. The TCEQ cited both Rebel and Double Oak for violations of their permits after the May 7th flood for failure to install sediment controls.
The suit alleges that the developer defendants failed to supervise and ensure Storm Water Solutions complied with the SWPPP.
Specific Allegations against Storm Water Solutions in Lawsuit
Storm Water Solutions website claims the company provides “complete storm water regulatory compliance to land developers, commercial and residential builders, general contractors, and utility districts.”
But in Count 10, Paragraph 76, the suit charges Storm Water Solutions with Negligence, Negligence Per Se and Gross Negligence for both the May and September floods. Specifically, the alleged negligence includes failing to:
Create an adequate storm water pollution prevention plan;
Implement a storm water pollution prevention plan;
Comply or follow the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;
Install reinforced filter fabric fences around the Development;
Install adequate reinforced filter fabric fences around the Development;
Comply with Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit No. TXR150000;
Supervise the Contractor Defendants’ compliance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;
Enforce the provisions of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;
Enforce and/or implement the best management practices under the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the Development;
Implement the proper control measures on the Development;
Ensure a sedimentation basin was constructed at the Development;
Inspect the Development for failure to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan;
Modify the best management practices after the May 7, 2019 occurrence;
Comply with the plans and specifications for the Development;
Pay proper attention;
Provide notice or warning; and,
Coordinate activities and/or conduct.
It also alleges they allowed:
Storm water runoff into Plaintiffs’ properties;
Discharge of storm water from the Development.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements, Objectives
Will supervise and implement good housekeeping programs, such as site cleanup and disposal of trash and debris, hazardous material management and disposal, vehicle and equipment maintenance, and so on?
Will conduct routine inspections of the site to ensure all BMPs are being implemented and maintained?
Will maintain the BMPs?
Is responsible for documenting changes to the SWPPP?
Is responsible for communicating changes in the SWPPP to people working on the site?
Plan objectives typically include:
Site stabilization ASAP
Protecting slopes and channels
Promoting infiltration of stormwater
Controlling the perimeter of the site
Protecting receiving waters adjacent to the site (Taylor Gully)
Following pollution prevention measures.
Minimizing the area and duration of exposed soils.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/25/2020with thanks to Jim Zura
1214 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 461 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/2019/05/NotWetlands.jpg?fit=1500%2C835&ssl=18351500adminadmin2020-12-25 16:47:582020-12-25 16:48:02Webster, Spurlock Add Storm Water Solutions to Lawsuit for Elm Grove Plaintiffs
Attorneys for owners of 304 flooded homes in Elm Grove have named Perry Homes, LLC and Concourse Development, LLC as additional defendants in their lawsuit. Plaintiff’s lawyers filed their 287-page, sixth amended petition on 6/16/2020. Today, they also filed a request for a new trial date of 3/1/2021.
New Information May Tie Perry, Concourse Directly to Floods
Based on allegations made in the lawsuit, it appears that attorneys may now have evidence that Concourse (the developer of Woodridge Forest) was also part owner of Woodridge Village. Wording within the allegations also suggests that Perry Homes was directly involved in the actions of its subsidiaries PSWA and Figure Four Partners, which in turn were telling contractors what to do and not to do.
This is potentially good news for plaintiffs because companies, such as PSWA and Figure Four are only subsidiaries of Perry. Such subsidiaries often act as shell companies that shield the parent company from liability. With few assets, the subsidiaries simply declare bankruptcy if they lose a large lawsuit. Then, life goes on as normal for the parent company. However…
Both Perry Homes and Concourse Development have substantial assets. Perry claims to be close to a billion dollar company.
Concourse developed the adjacent Woodridge Forest, where Perry also built homes. It bought Woodridge Village land and then held it for six days before selling it to Perry. Evidently, they didn’t sell their entire interest. Before the May 7th flood, Concourse bragged about its role in Woodridge Village. But after the flood, the company removed all mentions of Woodridge from its web site.
Allegations in Sixth Amended Petition
The big news: The plaintiff’s sixth amended petition now names Perry and Concourse as additional defendants. Previous petitions named only Perry subsidiaries, contractors and LJA Engineering.
In the new petition, defendants allege that:
LJA used an outdated version of Montgomery County’s Drainage Criteria manual when it designed drainage for Woodridge Village.
Figure Four failed to properly review the plans, catch the error, oversee LJA, or make construction decisions.
As a group, Figure Four, PSWA, Perry Homes and Concourse (referred to as “Developer Defendants” in the amended petition) hired contractors and directed them to fill in existing creeks and drainage channels, and to remove a levee or berm on the south side of Taylor Gully that had previously protected Elm Grove. The existence of this berm was not mentioned in LJA’s engineering plans, they say.
Even after the first flood on May 7th, when developers were aware of the danger, they failed to take corrective actions that would have prevented the September 19th flood.
As a direct consequence of their actions and inactions, the developers flooded hundreds of homes in Elm Grove.
The inactions of Perry and Concourse following the May 7th flood justify punitive damages.
Key Elements of Agreement Between Developers
The petition also claims that the four developer defendants entered into an agreement that called for them to:
Make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality and quantity of work
Be responsible for the techniques and sequences of construction, and safety precautions
Take responsibility AND liability for the contractors’ failure to construct the project in accordance with the contract documents.
However, the plaintiffs also accuse the developer defendants (through negligence or omissions) of:
Failing to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the work
Failing to properly monitor the techniques and sequences of construction or the safety precautions to ensure Elm Grove would not flood during construction
Failing to ensure the contractors performed the construction work in accordance with the contract documents
Failing to incorporate drainage studies prior to initiating construction on the Development
Failing to properly direct and supervise the means, methods, and techniques of the sequence in which the contractors performed the work on the Development
Removing drainage from the Development
Removing a levee and/or berm from the Development
Failing to implement a proper construction schedule
Failing to follow the construction schedule
Blocking the drainage channels
Filling in existing drainage channels
Failing to properly install box culverts
Failing to create temporary drainage channels
Failing to allow adequate drainage after construction
Failing to install silt barriers
Allowing the Development to force rainfall toward Plaintiffs’ homes’
Diverting surface water towards Plaintiffs’ homes
Failing to pay proper attention
Failing to provide notice or warning
Failing to have a proper rain event action plan
Failing to have a proper storm water pollution prevention plan
Failing to follow a proper storm water pollution prevention plan
Failing to coordinate activities and/or conduct
Failing to supervise the activities of the Development and engineering
Failing to instruct in proper construction and/or drainage requirements
Failing to train in proper construction and/or drainage requirements
Failure to review engineering plans
Failing to comply with the Terracon Consultants, Inc. geotechnical report
Failing to construct the emergency release channel
Failing to timely implement the detention ponds
Allowing inadequate construction to take place
Failing to hire an adequate engineer to implement the project plan
Failing to protect runoff from flooding homes
Failing to protect Elm Grove from flooding during construction.
Basis for Exemplary Damage Claim
Paragraph 42 contains some of the strongest language in the complaint. It alleges that the Developer Defendants knew of the risks, and both the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. The complaint asserts, “These acts and omissions were more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or error of judgment. Rather, the Developer Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.”
“Such acts and/or omissions,” the paragraph continues, “were a proximate cause of the flooding and the resulting injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby seek an award of exemplary damages.”
Having said all that, the plaintiffs seek BOTH ordinary and exemplary damages (defined below).
8 Defendants, 9 Counts, 2 Floods, 3 Degrees of Negligence
Altogether, the petition alleges nine counts against eight defendants in two floods. Spelling out who is being sued for what and why involves a lot of overlap and redundancy. But some of the Counts specify subsets of defendants, floods, allegations and degrees of negligence. So you may want to read the entire document.
The petition splits the defendants into three groups: Contractors, Developers, and LJA Engineering, with specific charges against each. The basis for charges sometimes varies also. For instance, charges against LJA include (in addition to many of those above) failure to:
Adequately report the modeling
Use the correct hydrology method
Adequately model the development
Notify the developers and contractors of the importance of the existing berm.
Plaintiffs say LJA was aware of the risks, but nevertheless proceeded with willful and conscious indifference to the rights safety and welfare of the victims.
As a result, plaintiffs are suing LJA for negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence for BOTH floods.
Differences Between Degrees of Negligence
Black’s Law Dictionary describes the differences:
Negligence is the failure to do something which a reasonable and prudent man would do, or doing something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do.
Negligence Per Se is the form of negligence that results from violation of a statute. The violation of a public duty enjoined by law for the protection of people and property. So palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that no careful person would be guilty of it.
Gross Negligence is the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another. It is a conscious and voluntary act of omission which is likely to result in grave injury when in the face of clear and present danger of which the defendant is aware.
In addition to negligence, plaintiffs also claim nuisance…”When Defendants unlawfully diverted … water onto Plaintiffs’ homes.”
Black’s Law Dictionary defines nuisance as “…that activity which arises from unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working obstruction or injury to right of another…and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience and discomfort that law will presume resulting damage.”
Seeking Damages, Exemplary/Punitive Damages
The ordinary damages, plaintiffs claim, consist of one or more of the following:
Cost of repairs to real property;
Cost of replacement or fair market value of personal property lost, damaged, or destroyed during such event;
Loss of use of real and personal property;
Diminution of market value of Plaintiffs’ properties;
Loss of income and business income;
Consequential costs incurred, inclusive of but not limited to alternative living conditions or accommodations and replacement costs;
Mental anguish and/or emotional distress;
Post judgment interest;
Costs of Court.
However, as a result of alleged gross negligence, plaintiffs also seek exemplary damages as punishment. Black’s Law Dictionary defines exemplary damages as “Damages on an increased scale awarded to a plaintiff over and above actual or ordinary damages, where wrong done to a plaintiff was aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud, or wanton and wicked conduct.”
Defendants’ Responses Not Yet Filed
As of this writing, the Harris County District Clerk’s website does not show responses filed by either Perry or Concourse to new allegations.
March 1 Preferential Trial Date Requested
Because of the number of plaintiffs, expert witnesses, defendants and law firms involved in this case, the plaintiffs have requested a “preferential trial setting” of March 1, 2021. A preferential trial setting eliminates the possibility of numerous continuances due to scheduling conflicts between the court, parties, attorneys and witnesses.
The plaintiffs have also requested a proposed Amended Docket Control Order that shows alternative dispute resolution (mediation) happening on 1/29/2021.
Net: If the judge accepts the new timetable, it will likely be another 7 to 8 months before this case sees any resolution.
As new developments happen, read about them here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/19/2020
1025 Days since Hurricane Harveyand 274 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Location-of-Plaintiffs.jpg?fit=1200%2C871&ssl=18711200adminadmin2020-06-19 17:30:442020-06-19 17:33:39Elm Grove Lawsuit Names Perry, Concourse Development As New Defendants; Trial Delayed
Ken Matthews lives in a one-story house on Shady Maple Drive in Elm Grove about a block below the troubled Woodridge Village development in Montgomery County. Homes on Shady Maple Drive experienced severe damage during both the May 7th and September 19th storms. That damage has been linked to this development.
“Had I Waited One More Minute…”
Between 8 and 9 o’clock a.m. on September 19th, Matthews saw water rising quickly in front of his home. He made a split-second decision to evacuate his wife and child. By the time he packed them in his car, they barely escaped. Water filled the street that quickly. He said, “Had I waited one more minute, we would not have gotten out.”
Matthews had just moved back into his house days before. They had lived with a friend for months while finishing repairs from the May 7th flood. He and his family went to the same friend’s house to wait out the September 19th storm.
Video from Jeff Miller’s security camera several blocks east shows his street filling up with clear water at the same time Matthews evacuated. However, a short while later, at exactly 10:10 a.m., a wave of chocolate brown muddy water came cascading down the street in a sudden surge. That much muck could only have come from one place: Woodridge Village. With only 25% of the detention installed, 75% of the runoff had to go somewhere else. It went into the streets of Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest.
Matthews said he did not join the lawsuit against Perry Homes subsidiaries and contractors after May 7th. However, he does plan to join the suit now. His home has just been wiped out for the second time in four months.
Even More Dirt
If you want to find more dirt on Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors, just go to the north end of Village Springs Drive next to Woodridge.
Significantly, Perry Homes has not lifted a finger to help the residents of Elm Grove. Instead it is suing them. This ranks as a new low in the annals of American corporate history.
Harris County Stormwater Rules Discourage Clearcutting Giant Sites All at Once
What do best practices in the development industry have to say about clearing such large sites all at once?
Harris County Stormwater Quality Management regulations discourage clearcutting giant sites like Woodridge Village all at once. See section 126.96.36.199, Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) During Construction. The text states, “The clearing, grubbing and scalping (mass clearing or grading) of excessively large areas of land at one time promotes erosion and sedimentation problems. On the areas where disturbance takes place the site designer should consider staging construction [emphasis added], temporary seeding and/or temporary mulching as a technique to reduce erosion. Staging construction involves stabilizing one part of the site before disturbing another [emphasis added].“
Of course, these are Harris County regulations and Woodridge Village sits in Montgomery County. Montgomery County has no comparable regulations posted on its website as far as I can tell.
Construction Sequencing Not Addressed In Construction Plans
Section 4.2.5 of the same Harris County document addresses Construction Sequencing. This section states, “The construction drawings should clearly state the designer’s intentions and an appropriate sequence of construction should be shown on the plans. This sequence should then be the topic of a detailed discussion at the pre-construction meeting (that must include the on-site responsible construction personnel) and then enforced by an appropriate inspection program throughout the construction period.”
Perry Homes Gang Still Stalling Lawsuit, But Some Hope
Meanwhile, the Perry Homes gang is still stalling the Webster-Spurlock law suit against them. Two weeks after the judge in the case heard arguments in the motion to compel discovery, she still has not made a ruling.
The intent of the order seems to be to keep documents away from the watchful eyes of the media, such as ReduceFlooding.com. On the plus side, though, lawyers tell me that sometimes such agreements may be a prelude to settlement talks. If this moves the case forward, I’m all for it. The flood victims desperately need help.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 5, 2019
767 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 16 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Ken-Matthews-Mailbox.jpg?fit=1500%2C2000&ssl=120001500adminadmin2019-10-05 21:27:282019-10-05 21:27:39More Dirt on Perry Homes
The docket control order issued by Judge Reeder also lays out the general order of events in the case. On or before:
12/16/2019, all parties to the case must be added and served, a legal process called “joinder.” Inviters this case, more than 200 individual plaintiffs are suing the defendants. Interestingly, the defendants do not yet include the parent company, Perry Homes, or LJA Engineering Inc., the company that designed the development and its detention systems.
4/13/2020, all expert witnesses for parties seeking affirmative relief must be named.
5/13/2020, all other expert witnesses must be named.
6/12/2020, the court will hold a status conference to discuss discovery limitations and alternative dispute resolution (i.e., mediation). The discover period ends on 6/12. All pleadings, amendments and challenges to expert testimony must also be heard by this date.
On 6/29/20 at 1:30 pm, Judge Reeder has scheduled a docket call at which all parties to the case must be prepared to discuss every aspect of the case.
Judge Reeder also tentatively scheduled the trial for 7/13/2020.
Construction on the Woodridge Village development will continue during the pre-trial phase. This has some residents concerned. While the construction of detention ponds is encouraging, any flaws in the construction of the engineering plans will be set in concrete before the case goes to trial. If there are flaws, that could affect flooding for years to come.
Jeff Miller, an Elm Grove resident, reports that two more culverts have been added to Taylor Gulley where it bisects the northern and southern portions of Woodridge Village.
Posted by Bob Rehak on July 25, 2019 with help from Bill Fowlerand Jeff Miller
695 days after Hurricane Harvey
All thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Culverts.jpg?fit=1500%2C867&ssl=18671500adminadmin2019-07-25 14:06:432019-07-25 14:08:21Judge Sets July 2020 Trial Date in Flood Case
The third wave of lawsuits filed by Webster and Spurlock against defendants Figure Four Partners, LTD; PSWA, Inc.; and Rebel Contractors, Inc. brings the total of plaintiffs they represent to more than 200.
This is not a class action suit. Each plaintiff suffered different amounts of damage. It is a series of individual lawsuits. Here is the first wave of plaintiffs, the second, the third and the basis for the claims.
The lawsuits allege negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, nuisance, and violation of Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code. Plaintiffs seek exemplary damages and a permanent injunction among other things.
District court record searches indicate that no other law firm has yet filed suit against these defendants for the Elm Grove and NKF flooding. However, they may. At least two other law firms have held meetings with residents.
A new term is floating around: rainxiety. That’s the anxiety flood victims feel whenever rain is forecast. Dozens of residents have told me that they sweat, their hearts race, and they begin to panic whenever it rains. One even begins humming Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Who’ll Stop the Rain?” That should become the theme song for Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest.
“Still the rain kept pourin’, Fallin’ on my ears. And I wonder, Still I wonder Who’ll stop the rain.” By John Fogarty
All 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.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/29/2019 with help from Jeff Miller
638 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ElmGroveFlood_01_11.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-05-29 20:19:172019-05-31 07:07:02More than 40 Additional Plaintiffs Join Webster, Spurlock Lawsuits Against Woodridge Developers and Contractor for May 7th Flooding
I spent four hours driving around Kingwood and Forest Cove this afternoon counting flood-damaged homes from the heavy rains last week. I counted a total of 211. Of those, 196 were in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. That means 93% were near the 262 acres that Figure Four Partners clearcut for its new development in Montgomery County.
The remaining 15 homes appeared to be isolated, low-lying homes or homes with blocked drains. Only four of those in Woodland Hills and Bear Branch appeared related to creek or ditch flooding. The rest were scattered around Kingwood and Forest Cove.
Breakdown by Location
Here’s the breakdown of what I could find … in descending order.
Elm Grove – 175
North Kingwood Forest – 21
Bear Branch – 5
Forest Cove – 4
Woodland Hills – 3
Trailwood – 2
Kings Forest – 1
Most damaged homes outside of Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest appeared to be isolated instances in low-lying areas. In two places, I saw two damaged homes next to each other.
I could only find four homes (plus the St. Martha school and Kids in Action) that flooded near Bens Branch. Bens Branch is another stream about the size of Taylor Gully and not far from it.
I expected to find many more flooded homes near Bens Branch. But after going down dozens of cul-de-sacs and finding no damage, I abandoned that search.
Massive Concentration Raises Legal Questions
The concentration of damage within a few blocks of Figure Four Partners’ 262 clearcut acres will certainly raise legal issues for the developer and its contractors. So does the fact that all the other creeks in the Kingwood and Forest Cove area put together did not flood more than six homes/businesses that I could see. Several law firms are already reportedly filing law suits on behalf of flood victims. More on that later.
These numbers may be understated because I may have missed some homes where trash had already been picked up. I was looking for the tell-tale wallboard residue in grass where people had piled sheetrock, but trash crews were doing a pretty good job.
Social media reported damage in Hunters Ridge, Sherwood Trails, Kings Mill and Kings Point. But I did not see the damage. If someone flooded in these areas, please send me your address through the contact form on this web site and I will update the count.
Also, I have not yet ventured to Atascocita, Huffman, or Porter. More on those areas in a subsequent post.
People on ten streets in Porter reported damage; all streets appear to be close to the new development, but I have not verified the proximity of damaged homes on those streets to the clearcut area. That 93% figure could rise or fall depending on what I find in Porter.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/14/2019, with thanks to Regan McMahon-Cohen for compiling a list of streets and neighborhoods from social media
623 Days since Hurricane Harvey
All conclusions expressed in this post are opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas and the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ElmGroveFlood_01_10.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-05-14 20:11:292019-05-14 20:23:0793% of Flood-Damaged Homes in Kingwood and Forest Cove Are Near Area Clearcut by Figure Four Partners