On 21 August 2021, I reported the waste of $500,000 on a failed effort to address the problems on the Brown Farm floodplain. In slavish obedience to a consultant’s design, Public Works graded a huge site, moving more dirt than one PW employee had ever seen moved on one of its projects; erected five stone barrier walls to slow storm surges; and spray-seeded the site for grass to absorb or impede gentler, leveled flows. Two light rains later, the runoff did an end-run around the rock barriers and gouged out erosion gullies over three feet deep. The pictures were impressive, if I say so myself.
In that blog, I concluded,
The city does not need another monument, one to the results of a face-saving, hurry-up-and-waste, price-of-everything-value-of-nothing decision to tweak a failure. In deciding which alternative [I had suggested a simple structure to absorb the force of the water and to direct it down a rock-lined channel to the destination pond] offers the better chance of success at a reasonable cost, it needs to consider the consequences and costs of failure. A second failure would be a [fill in the blank]. Still, Pili’s management approach, with City Council’s acquiescence, may be to shrug off the waste of a half-million-dollars and walk away from a site which seems cursed.
On this day, 2 January 2022, I report that Public Works opted to reject my suggestion and “to tweak a failure” at a cost which I guess to be at least another $100,000. Public Works filled in the gullies; installed a wire-mesh-braced stone field; doubled or tripled the length of the rock barriers; and laid down and staked in long hay rolls to retard surface runoff. Two gentle rains later, the water did an end-run around the rock barriers, broke or dug below the hay rolls, and gouged out erosion gullies about two feet deep—a virtual repetition of the first fiasco. The pictures are impressive, if I again say so myself.
In the many months since Public Works launched and executed these abortive efforts, I offered advice and suggestions, as I have since 2008. But the City Administration and its Public Works Department know so much better than a citizen whose property abuts the site, walks it twice a day, and has witnessed runoff from gentle drizzles to torrential downpours. I do not mind; as a consultant, I learned to accept the rejection of my advice by a few of my clients, who went on to difficulties under their won guidance. But I am sure that Department leaders are not happy to be proved wrong not once, but twice.
Still, there is something to be retrieved from this situation. First and foremost, money spent in Las Cruces, whether wisely or not, goes into the local economy and helps City Manager Ifo Pili achieve his mission of ending poverty in town. Notwithstanding, Mr. Pili is unlikely to seek additional funding for further fiascos on this site; money for the economy can be squandered on other mismanaged projects without getting anything in return. Second, much can be achieved by a few inexpensive steps to restore the site. One, Public Works can remove the hay rolls, stakes, and other debris. Two, it can remove the rock barriers and store the rocks for use on another site. Three, it can then just go away, and let nature re-seed the graded ground, probably within a year. It can be sure that runoff will flow downhill, slow or fast, and find its way to the intended holding pond. A little erosion along the way is a little thing hardly to be noticed—much less so than a third fiasco.
No comments:
Post a Comment