Skip to profile
AN INDEPENDENT CASE STUDY Mount Pleasant, Texas
← Back to Who’s Who?
Editorial illustration of a globe, green sprout and water droplet; symbolic imagery for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EDITORIAL ILLUSTRATION

Federal agencies / ORGANIZATION IN THE RECORD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Federal environmental agency

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Linked record period: Oct 20, 2025 – Oct 27, 2025

WHY THIS PROFILE IS HERE

Role in the paper trail

The October complaint and its referral sequence are traced through EPA, TCEQ and local records.

CHRONOLOGY

Key dates & context

  1. Author’s account

    Kyle submits environmental concerns through EPA’s reporting form

    The retained complaint is dated October 20, with 18:25 shown in the saved record.

    Context, limits & source references

    The complaint records Kyle’s allegations and requested review, not an agency violation finding.

    • EPA submission confirmation · October 20, 2025
  2. Source record

    EPA → TCEQ → City / MPPD routing

    EPA routes the complaint to TCEQ. Hodo emails James on October 27; James forwards the quoted chain that evening to Bryan Denney and Code Enforcement, copying Buhman. On October 28 James separately asks Hodo to send the video to the Chief because she cannot forward it.

    Context, limits & source references

    The correspondence establishes the forwarding route and the request to send a video. It does not independently establish a later direct Hodo-to-Chief delivery, that the Chief viewed the video, or an investigation outcome.

    • O008/O009 · EPA October 23; TCEQ/City October 27; follow-up October 28

Source notes

Symbolic editorial illustration; imagined objects and buildings, not official insignia or documentary evidence.

This profile is drawn from the case study’s reviewed chronology and correspondence index, through September 21, 2026. Roles identify the capacity described by the linked material; the date range is not a verified employment term.

Source statements, transcript excerpts, reported concerns, historical comparisons and timing analysis retain their separate labels. An invitation does not prove attendance. A copied recipient does not establish agreement or action. A call-number match does not establish call content.

Editorial portraits are illustrations, not documentary photographs. Original documents and recordings control over the profile summary. About the method ↗