Well.
I have now read the Riveron Review of the Trinity River Vision, more commonly known as America's Biggest Boondoggle, or simply as The Boondoggle.
This is no Mueller Report. It is only 92 pages long. Not detailed, in an indepth, investigative sort of way, like that aforementioned Mueller Report. But, like that Mueller Report, those being investigated have tried to take control of the Riveron Review, wanting to check it for "accuracy" before the public gets a look at it.
Well.
That attempt at coverup did not work. The Riveron Review is now widely available for public perusal. Even though, as you can see via the screen cap above, the draft is under embargo - not for public dissemination.
There is more than one element in the Riveron Review which seemed to me to be possibly a bit tainted by propaganda input by those with the most to lose, as in those who have been responsible, well, more accurately, irresponsible, regarding how this pseudo public works project has been foisted on the public.
The section of the Riveron Review which looks at how the failing V-pier bridge design came to be, seemed to be not based on previously revealed information. And in addition to that, the rational for building those three little bridges over dry land also seems to be, well, ridiculous.
Suffice to say we will have more to say on this subject and the elements in the Riveron Review which seem to be a bit, well, wrong, later, when we are back located at our regular Internet connection to the world.
In the meantime, suffice to say, where upon actually reading the Mueller Report one could not honestly say that report reported "No Collusion, No Obstruction", with the Riveron Review one might accurately say upon reading it "Much Confusion, Slow Construction".
Like we said, more on this later...
2 comments:
Sent to Clyde...
This was news to me. Was the Corp initiating the idea of a bypass channel and was the levee fix an across the board 10 foot raise with a property taking element?
We had Corp docs that gave the sparse locations of levees that need topping out in way less that 10 feet and no reference to any takings.
You may know more having been on the Council. Makes me think that Riveron was interviewing TRWD staff about the origins, and they were revising history to justify and defend the flood control aspects.
10 million was the fix as I recall. Not 10 feet more on all the levees. That early of a suggestion to dig a bypass would have been in conjunction with the taking DOWN of certain levees. The 2 points made in the Draft seem to contradict a levee repair plan.
Sent to Clyde...
This was news to me. Was the Corp initiating the idea of a bypass channel and was the levee fix an across the board 10 foot raise with a property taking element?
We had Corp docs that gave the sparse locations of levees that need topping out in way less that 10 feet and no reference to any takings.
You may know more having been on the Council. Makes me think that Riveron was interviewing TRWD staff about the origins, and they were revising history to justify and defend the flood control aspects.
10 million was the fix as I recall. Not 10 feet more on all the levees. That early of a suggestion to dig a bypass would have been in conjunction with the taking DOWN of certain levees. The 2 points made in the Draft seem to contradict a levee repair plan.
Post a Comment