The city has performed a steady-flow analysis but the commission would like them to go a step further by performing an unsteady-flow analysis. And since this is above and beyond what is actually required the commission is willing to foot the bill. Seems like a no-brainer right? Might as well be extra careful and ensure that the flooding won't just be pushed onto other areas right? Well, evidently not:
“First we would have to believe the modeling we’ve done is inadequate,” Greg Meszaros, director of public works, told The Journal Gazette. “And we don’t.”
But it's not as thorough as using both flow models and since someone is willing to pay for it then why not just do it? The next quote gives us some insight into their rational as it shows a certain contempt for computer modeling altogether:
“Remember that models are just guesses based on thousands of assumptions,” Meszaros said. “We’ve used good engineering and scientific judgment. I haven’t seen any evidence that anything we’ve done has been inadequate.”
As someone who makes a living doing computer modeling I find that statement laughable. Most models are what we call physics-based and are not "guesses" as Meszaros states. Granted they are only as good as the inputs, but the beauty of computer modeling is that you can run an entire set of inputs to generate best and worst case scenarios.
The commission isn't claiming the work has been inadequate. They simply would like to go the extra mile to ensure everything will work as claimed. If the city is truly confident in the work to date then they should just do the damn study...