Are Ponds Impervious Area?

[heitjer]

All,
I like to see what kind of regulations are across the country for ponds and if they are considered "impervious" area with regards to drainage regulations. Here is some background on the question:

In November last year the City of Houston voted for a drainage fee of 0.032 $/sqft (or 0.026 for ditch drainage) and the bill just arrived. On my 6.2 acres I was assessed to have 71,000 sqft (~ 2acres) of impervious area. After the initial sticker shock ($2,300/year) I found out that my pond (~3/4 acre) and major portions of my pasture (~1 acre, shale soil) are considered impervious. I can probably get the pasture thing sorted out but the pond is considered "impervious". Please let me know if similar considerations are in your areas/regions. I am trying to build a knowledge base for my apealing process.

If someone knows a certified Civil Engineer in the Houston area that is able to help me with a drainage assessment I would like to get contact information via PM please.

*heitjer*

 

[piller]

Wow is about all I can say. I'm not qualified to help you with the appeal process but will watch this thread to see what I can learn.

It seems that the drainage rule would be in effect to prevent runoff from your property, hardscape type areas, impervious areas, that would load the local storm drain system and increase flooding potential.

I hope you can get the pasture area re-classified. Of course it depends on the pasture, some pasture is like a meadow and capable of absorbing a lot of water and other pasture can be like a parking lot.

Whenever I see a new shopping center or other commercial project there is usually a retaining pond type area to catch the runoff water, slow down the release of water, and filter the water. However, these pond areas are normally empty and are able to absorb and collect a considerable volume of water before they overflow.

I think that if your pond is full it has no ability to hold more water and it would be correct to say that it is an impervious area. Any water from a storm that falls or flows into a full pond will immediately overflow and leave the pond. Perhaps you could document that your pond is not full and is capable of collecting some volume of water from a storm and use that information in your appeal.

 

[scgargoyle]

It really amazes me the clever ways they find to separate us from our money! Here in FL, they put in retention ponds to handle run-off. There has to be X amount of pond area for a given amount of impervious area, such as pavement or buildings. This is done up-front, during construction, and then that's it- no further assessments. I would think that if the remaining area of your land could be shown to handle the run-off from the impervious areas, then you're covered; your property isn't burdening anybody. The impervious shale has always been there, as has the pond, possibly. Shouldn't God be paying the assessment, and not you? Sheesh!

Our property in SC is only required to not have any uncontrolled run-off. As long as I have vegetation to control erosion, and silt fences to control it during construction, I'm good to go.

 

[wedge40]

I hate to point out the irony to the op. But isn't most of Texas in a drought?

Wedge

 

[Rustyiron]

It sounds like the City of Houston's governing board's brains are friggin impervious to rational thought! Maybe you can charge them for the water that your pond collects during a storm? Unreal!

 

[heitjer]

I hate to point out the irony to the op. But isn't most of Texas in a drought?
Wedge

Quite right - my pond has lost about 2 ft of water from "normal" which is approx 1 ft below overflow tube, given the size of it of approx 30,000 sqft this makes a nice volume that I can retain in case it will ever rain again.

I am just glad that it is 24 ft deep and still ways to go before my fish fry in the heat....

 

[dodge man]

I work for an engineering firm and we design detention basins. Maybe with a little bit of engineering, you could show that your pond acts as a detention basin and you could reduce that fee.

 

[bikerdib]

What kills me is they excluded churches from the fee. There seems to be a Church (or a new one going up) on every corner, with large buildings and huge parking lots. I have nothing against anyone that wishes to worship in a church but I think it's time they start pulling some of their own weight in maintaining the areas around them. Churches are some of the richest organizations in the world.

NON-PROFIT?????

 

[LD1]

I have never even heard of something like that.

I am pretty sure we dont have anything like that here, but I could be wrong. I live in the rural sticks, we dont even have any storm drains out here.

But If I am understanding you correctly, you live near an urban area, and water runs off of your property into storm drains, and they are wanting to charge you for the amount of run-off they estimate your property generates and sends to said storm drains??? Is that correct???

If it is, I would not be a happy camper either. Werent storm drains designed to handle storm water that runs off of parking lots that cannot absorb water?? And also to control flodding for those that live in flood zones??? Why Should you have to foot the bill? Didnt mother nature build us all sorts of rivers to handle the water??? If they chose to build storm drains so they could build houses where it floods, shouldnt THEY be the ones footing the bill? Not you?

 

[johnrex62]

I have never even heard of something like that.

I am pretty sure we dont have anything like that here, but I could be wrong. I live in the rural sticks, we dont even have any storm drains out here.

But If I am understanding you correctly, you live near an urban area, and water runs off of your property into storm drains, and they are wanting to charge you for the amount of run-off they estimate your property generates and sends to said storm drains??? Is that correct???

If it is, I would not be a happy camper either. Werent storm drains designed to handle storm water that runs off of parking lots that cannot absorb water?? And also to control flodding for those that live in flood zones??? Why Should you have to foot the bill? Didnt mother nature build us all sorts of rivers to handle the water??? If they chose to build storm drains so they could build houses where it floods, shouldnt THEY be the ones footing the bill? Not you?

As much as I dislike the idea of charging a fee for services based on an unsubstantiated quantity such as expected runoff and believe the base taxes should cover services like flood control, your logic on who should foot the bill is not all it should be.

First, he decided where to live not anyone else. The City/State did not mandate his residential location.

Second, Who is the THEY you feel should be paying for his safety from floods? I suspect it is the government, which is US, not THEY.

Third, while correct about the design and purpose of storm drains, you miss the mark on Rivers. They were designed to channel runoff from unimproved lands. We cannot expect them to handle our increased requirements without assistance or even accommodation from our designs.

I agree that it is an abuse of power to wrest our monies away on the pretext of public safety by allocating the cost of such protection to specific individuals through the use of fuzzy logic such as this. If it is a true public safety service, the the entire public should foot the bill. If it is a targeted safety service then it should be paid for by the targeted community evenly. In areas I am familiar with, the common practice is to setup flood control districts and charge a tax rate to all property owners. It is based on property value, which is not ideal but does tend to weight the allocation based on amount of property at the expense of owners of more valuable property. At least every property owner is charged to some degree by the amount of land they own or the value of the improvements they protect rather than some immeasurable and unsubstantiable factor.