Houston Road flooding - CAUTION Macon
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:16:45 -0400 From: Lee Martin <mermaidlover@mindspring.com>
Interested parties,
After two lawsuits, one settled out of court with monetary rewards for the plaintiffs (citizens), and one lost in Federal Court, both addressing existing flooding problems, and the potential for more flooding from any more road building, it has happened! The community around Houston Road flooded dangerously Sunday morning after only 2-1/2 inches of rain. Thankfully, this time videos (4) were taken of the coursing water and the safety problems it was causing and were shown this morning to the County Commissioner's Public Works and Engineering Committee. A fire truck stalled on Houston Road because the water was so deep, a small dog was washed down a culvert, logs were seen rushing down wherever the water made a river, the County's Emergency Engineering telephone number had been disconnected, citizen's had to unblock some of the drainage culverts on their own to prevent further damage, the (r)(d)etention pond built to contain the water didn't work as designed and engineered, and the County Engineer played defense. The County Emergency Management Chief asked, "why were houses built in the flood plain!!", and said, 'it had never flooded in that area before.' It was pointed out to him that it had flooded in 1987, 1990, 1994, and 1998, all with torrential rains, but this time with only 2-1/2 inches of rain! What has changed in the area? Grading for a five lane impervious road! The (r)(d)etention pond built to contain this water with CBDG grant money as dispersed through HUD, didn't work!!! The only people blamed for this boondoggle at the meeting this morning, were Tribble and Richardson Engineering, a.k.a. DS Atlantic), who were not there, conveniently, to defend themselves. Sunday, when Ga. D.O.T. was called for help, they laid the blame on Bibb County! I heard more positive, intelligent, well researched, and knowledgeable solutions to the problem from citizens who were at the meeting today than from any of the engineers who are supposed to know. Interestingly, they are solutions (after the fact), to problems known and presented to all the committees and agencies involved, before the design and construction of the road was approved in the first place! What does it take for the citizens of Bibb County to be heard?
Will you help?
Recurring Houston Road flooding worries residents
By Christopher Schwarzen - The Macon Telegraph - September 6th 2000
Flooding Sunday near Houston Road again has left south Bibb County residents wondering who's at fault and what's going to be done about it.
Several residents filed into the County Commission's public works meeting Tuesday, wagging fingers and complaining, "We told you so."
This isn't the first time Houston Road has flooded, residents say. They complained last year - even filed a lawsuit to stop it - saying widening Houston from two to five lanes would exacerbate the problem.
They believe poor drainage and road runoff allowed up to five inches of rain [The official rain guage at the Airport 1/8 mile away measured 2.5 inches] to turn into a flash flood Sunday, leaving several basements and front yards under water. With Houston Road under construction, they're already seeing the effects of what more pavement will eventually do, they say.
"My basement has one inch of water in it," said resident Debbie Varnadore. "Within five minutes (the flooding) went from real bad to God awful. Why won't the county listen to us?"
Varnadore, speaking for several residents Tuesday, said she's been to commissioners and engineers before, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'll correct flooding issues in the area.
A study last year, commissioned by the city-county roads program, showed Houston Road's widening would only increase water runoff by 3 percent. DS Atlantic, formerly Tribble & Richardson, which completed the study, stands by the report.
"I'm not aware of any problem with the report," said Mike Windom, a DS Atlantic project engineer. "We've done a good bit of study, but we're not going to comment further until we know where the flooding is coming from."
Still, DS Atlantic officials will meet with roads program leaders and the Bibb County Engineering Department later this week to discuss the report and search for the flooding's cause.
Says Sheri Williamson, assistant manager of the roads program, "We're still saying we don't think it's the road, but we're going to double check it."
Williamson plans to raise again the option of building a retention pond in the area to collect water from the road, even though the DS Atlantic study shows it isn't cost-effective.
"The report said it wasn't necessary for the road, but it may be needed for the area in general," she said. "We already have a design for one."
It would be the second retention pond near Houston Road, built to deal with past flooding problems, especially those of the Great Flood of 1994. But that doesn't appease Varnadore or other residents tired of ringing out their carpet and drying off the furniture.
"We can't give them the benefit of the doubt," she said. "We're going to have to stay on top of this."
Varnadore walked into the commission meeting Tuesday equipped a video of the weekend flooding. She hoped it would turn a few hearts.
"Now they've actually seen it, so hopefully they'll begin to understand that we're not just being picky or lying about it."
Commissioners appeared to have watched and listened. Commission Chairman Larry Justice said he was upset something hadn't already been done to correct drainage problems in the area.
Commissioner Joe Allen, chair of the Engineering and Public Works Committee, echoed Justice's comments and promised to hold a public hearing at the Porter Ellis Center on Houston Road.
Allen wants DS Atlantic representatives to be on hand to explain to residents the situation and answer their questions. No date has been set for the meeting.
For Varnadore and others, the meeting better have some answers. They say they're tired of the problems and getting what they feel is the runaround.
"After all, how many times have I already yelled and screamed about flooding and drainage out there?" she asked. "If another rain comes, God help us."
Staff writer Randall Savage contributed to this report. To contact Christopher Schwarzen, call 744-4213 or e-mail cschwarzen@macontel.com. http://www.macontelegraph.com/local/0906_flooding.htm 2000
Picture below is of a flooded playground on Chriswood Drive
Picture below is of worthless detention pond and flood water over Houston Road
Excerpts below are from The Trial
Page 28, January 7, 2000
22 Q. (BY MR. THOMASON) Are you familiar with an executive order
23 that was given yesterday as 119988?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would you tell the court, please, if federal highway has
0061
1 implemented that executive order in the preparation of the EA
2 FONSI on Houston Road?
3 A. Yes, we have.
4 Q. How did we comply with it, please?
5 A. Through our full consideration of those effects.
6 Q. What is the practical effect of the construction that is
7 ongoing on Houston Road to any rainwater runoff in the area?
8 A. The runoff that would be created through the construction
9 of the facility, as it is proposed, would be handled as I
10 previously stated, through the drainage system that is being put
11 in place as a part of the project.
12 Q. After the project is completed, would there be a difference
13 to people adjacent to the road as to the amount of water?
14 A. There will be no new runoff created that would impact
15 them.
Page 50-51 Questions by My Hubert
Q. Ms. Dimassimo, do you know whether or not any new
5 information was included in the addendum that hasn't been there
6 before?
7 A. I'm not aware.
8 Q. Now, tell me if you can, if you relied on -- I think this
9 is Government's Exhibit 5 -- and this map says that there is no
10 property in here that is affected in the flood plain area. And
11 you have witnesses that get on the stand and say that is an
12 error. And some of them say, I have sat in my basement, or
13 stood in my basement with water over my knees. Does that bother
14 you in any terms of projecting the environmental consequences of
15 a five-lane road that is going to, as we, was shown by
16 Mr. Kulash, going to mean a very wide swath through this area
17 and going to change the topography of the land immensely and
18 create impervious surfaces all over the place?
19 A. I certainly can appreciate the kinds of conditions that I
20 heard folks describe yesterday. That they, and the problems
21 that they are having with flooding. For this particular
22 project, though, we have to consider the impact of our project
23 within its scope.
24 And, in addition, this particular project included an
25 environmental mitigation commitment that this will be
0111
1 implemented or will be, if the project is built through the
2 construction contract; that the, it will not place any new storm
3 water runoff on to adjacent properties. But that there will be
4 a drainage system constructed with the project that will handle
5 the runoff from the project.
6 Q. Ms. Dimassimo, if you are going to make an undertaking like
7 that, and give the assurance that this project will not
8 exacerbate that problem at all -- did you make reference to
9 Mr. Doug Hayes' chart where he showed where that flood plain
10 went, that was a little bit different from 5, if I remember,
11 from Defendant's Exhibit 5, and accounted for the fact that
12 there was a railroad embankment that served as a dam -- and
13 there were, this was affirmed in the Tribble/Richardson study as
14 well -- there were conduits that were too small for the flow of
15 the water. Now, if you put all of those things together, is
16 there anything intellectually dishonest about determining that a
17 FONSI would issue? That is, a Finding of No significant
18 Impact? Aren't those two things mutually exclusive, ma'am?
19 A. What two things?
20 Q. The things that says, oh, we will undertake to make sure
21 there is no water problem from our five-laning this roadway, and
22 we will make sure that we will implement a plan that says that
23 the situation is not exacerbated but, nevertheless, we find this
24 project will not have any significant environmental impact.
25 A. No, sir.
0112
1 Q. It is in the same category, I submit to you, Ms. Dimassimo,
2 like saying that the historic preservation analysis was correct
3 but we have to amend it. And then we come in and say, oh, we
4 are going to put this five-lane road in here, and we don't find
5 there is any significant impact on it, but we are going to
6 assure you that we are going to implement a plan which will
7 absolutely assure that there is no flood water exacerbation down
8 there. Those things are not inconsistent to you?
9 A. With regard to the example you used of an addendum being
10 necessary for the historic site inventory; again, there can
11 always be cases where, despite a full and complete study,
12 something is overlooked.
13 What I feel assured by is that when the matter was brought
14 to you are attention, we fully and completely addressed it and
15 insured complete compliance with the law and regulation.
16 Q. Does it bother you, Ms. Dimassimo, that what we feel
17 unassured by is the fact that there was no environmental impact
18 statement that would have been performed that could perhaps have
19 assured us that we would not have had to do an addendum; it
20 would been complete, total, and what they call here at the very
21 heart of the impact statement, a rigorously explored,
22 objectively evaluated, where all reasonable alternatives were
23 looked at?
24 A. Again, we believe that the, our finding that this was a
25 document the level of an environmental assessment, and the
0113
1 finding of no significant impact still is valid.
2 Q. Is it not a process from a procedural standpoint,
3 Ms. Dimassimo, which is entirely ad hoc? That is to say, you
4 decide what you want to decide before you decide it, then you go
5 ahead and make an argument which justifies it? Isn't that the
6 process here?
7 A. No, sir.
Page maintained by Lindsay Holliday
Go To Caution Macon