refundFebruary 26, 2015
Dear Manager Harden,
I just finished reading the report from Pegasus Engineering on the advisability of a berm along the east bank of the Halifax Canal (see attached) and the only possible conclusion I can reach is that the City of Port Orange has once again wasted its money.
Most of the report consists of a rehash of existing material yet even there Pegasus reaches erroneous conclusions. Their notion that your October 3, 2014 Memorandum to the City Council adequately summarizes the events that caused the most recent flooding of Dunlawton is no longer widely accepted. Even the Quentin L Hampton project engineers admitted in the Flood Workshop that once the banks of the Halifax Canal are breached no amount of pumping and retention can keep up for long with the resulting inundation of Dunlawton.
Pegasus also, for reasons obscure to me, makes a big deal of the “Unnamed Ditch” along the south property line of the Sugar Mill development. They note the benefit of installing a backflow prevention device on the outfall pipe of this ditch and their conclusion that it would help eliminate a potential source of stormwater on Dunlawton is correct–that is exactly why just such a device was originally planned for the Dunlawton Drainage Project but was eliminated at the same time as the berm. Once again we are paying twice for engineering.
Their final conclusion that construction of a berm along the east bank of the Halifax Canal would adversely affect upstream flooding is not supported by existing topographical information. They claim that under “staged up” conditions (greater than 5 feet in elevation per their report) water would “flow at even a greater rate over the west bank along Spruce Creek Road, and would also slightly increase the flow over the canal banks along Canal View.” Manager Harden, you have in your possession, and presumably made available to Pegasus, the Specific Purpose Survey, Job Number 11-0976, performed by Sliger Surveying for Quentin L Hampton, dated 12-22-2011. That survey shows the banks of the Halifax Canal to be at elevations of between 6.6 and 9.9 feet in the areas noted by Pegasus. Since these elevations are above the 6-foot elevation of the now deleted berm, water would overflow the berm first. In fairness to Pegasus, there are some short sections of bank where their observations may be valid but these sections are extremely limited in scope and could easily be handled during berm construction.
Manager Harden, I know that your past, pleasant, associations with Pegasus Engineering when you worked in another city have resulted in contacts within the Pegasus organization. Given these associations is it perhaps possible to ask for a refund?
618 Ruth St
Port Orange, FL 32127
Scrolling Window 9 Pages[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bznby4cJhHWTMmg3ZmtEWlBKQkl0cFc2S2J6c28xdDRGQWtR/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”HalifaxCanalDraft.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_11_pdf_list.png” width=”100%” height=”900″ style=”embed”]
To expand map click on (up arrow ) icon in upper right corner of Map;
then click on the ( + ) icon in upper right corner of the 2nd display (slow loading)
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bznby4cJhHWTRlhwcE5SdWt5RkRJUVdzNjgyajAwVHlab1BZ/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”HalifaxCanalMap.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_11_pdf_list.png” width=”100%” height=”475″ style=”embed”]