We Need An Honest Explanation Whether Berm Design Was Reckless or Deleted Recklessly

ted0Good morning Managers Harden and Rosen,
In addition to the ” berm correspondence ” you have attached to the workshop agenda for tonight’s meeting I would request that you also attach the October 28th e-mail from Andrew Giannini in which
he confesses that
the Dunlawton pond was analyzed and designed without taking canal water into consideration in that analysis, AND that if the canal over tops its banks the resulting canal water would inundate the Ruth Street pond which is to say – that pond would in turn overtop its banks and Dunlawton Ave would flood, — which is exactly what happened in the Sept 24th 2014 rain event.
The reason Canal water was not included in that design analysis was because it was assumed that canal water would be contained within the canal banks with the aid of the missing berm, ( AND THIS assumption was critical because without it, the obvious reality was that flooding on Dunlawton Ave would not be mitigated and the project would be less likely to be funded )
The question before Council appears to have come down to making a decision as to whether the berm design was reckless or ill considered in some manner, because it failed to take in to consideration possible up-stream flooding in unidentified locations.
In making that decision it is important for Council to remember that throughout 2010 QLH was co-authoring with Camp Dresser & McKee on behalf of Port Orange, FDOT, Volusia County and the adjoining Cities that abut the Nova Canal ( self styled as the EVRWA – East Volusia Regional Water Authority ) the most extensive study that has ever been conducted on the Nova/Halifax canal system to date,
AND armed with that knowledge did QLH back away from recommending a berm ?? They did not, rather they designed the missing berm, And in the months following oversaw that permitting of that berm by SJRWMD, AND in the months following permitting in the months of weekly construction progress meetings right up to August 28th 2013, they worked tirelessly to ensure the berm was constructed. What happened on or about August 28th that caused QLH to do a complete 180° and then start insisting the berm be deleted ?? Was it engineering based or was it political pressure based ??
For the matter of the missing berm to ever receive any rest QLH must provide a full explanation as to why at their insistence the berm not installed at the time of construction, INCLUDING an honest explanation as to whether their berm design was reckless or ill considered in any manner in terms of the now ballyhooed ‘possible upstream flooding ‘ AND whether they currently stand behind their berm design, INCLUDING the reasons why or why not.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ted Noftall
for responsible government – 2016

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.