[The Brazil Times nameplate] Fair ~ 46°F  
High: 72°F ~ Low: 53°F
Friday, May 6, 2016

Lawmaker wants homeowners to pay for pond safety

Sunday, January 9, 2011

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- An Indiana lawmaker worried about the dangers posed by retention ponds wants nearby homeowners to foot the bill of erecting safety barriers such as guardrails that could prevent drownings in the growing number of drainage basins dotting the state's subdivisions.

Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, sponsored a similar bill in 2009 that cleared the Senate, but died in the Democrat-controlled House. He's optimistic about his bill's prospects this session now that his party controls both legislative chambers.

Bray said his bill could help prevent the drownings of children who fall into the flood-control ponds and disoriented motorists who miss a turn and accidentally drive into one of the small lakes.

Indiana developers are required to build such ponds to capture rain and snow melt flowing off parking lots, streets and homes' roofs in subdivisions. So are developers of office and industrial parks, some of which have multiple ponds.

"A generation ago we didn't have retention ponds, but there are a lot of them now, and I think if you're going to have them they should be as safe as possible," Bray said. "We've had some real tragedies."

While community swimming pools are ringed by fencing to prevent children from drowning, Bray notes that many retention ponds have no such features, leading to several deaths each year.

Last April, a 5-year-old Indianapolis girl drowned in a neighborhood retention pond. And over the past two years, several Indiana motorists have died after driving into one of the ponds, while others have survived or been rescued.

Bray's bill would not require the construction of guardrails, fences or earthen barriers around existing retention ponds, but would instead provide a way to pay for them. It would permit an Indiana statute called the Barrett Law that's typically used for debt financing to be tapped as a financing mechanism to pay for pond barriers.

He said that cost would be reflected in the tax bills of homeowners in subdivisions and businesses in office or industrial parks with the ponds. Bray said his bill would apply to existing ponds, but he hopes local zoning boards take up the cause and require developers seeking approval for projects to include such barriers in their designs.

Jeff Quyle, a member of the Morgan County Council who testified in favor of Bray's bill in 2009, said he will testify for it again if asked because he's worried about what he said appears to be an increase in retention pond drownings.

"It seems like two or three times a year you hear about a car found in a pond," he said.

Quyle noted that in 2008, the body of a Plainfield man who had been missing for two years was found in his car at the bottom of a retention pond only blocks from his home.

He said there needs to be a way to pay for safety systems around them, particularly since Indiana voters in November approved a constitutional amendment making the state's property tax limits more permanent. Using Barrett Law funding makes sense in light of the property tax limits, Quyle said, because it passes on the cost of an improvement to the individuals mostly likely to benefit from it.

"It's sort of a property tax user fee, in essence. The folks in the immediate vicinity of one of these ponds are the ones who are driving on the roads of the subdivision for the most part. They're the ones who are most at risk. And they're the ones who will receive the most benefit from having it there."

Rick Wajda, chief executive officer of the Indiana Builders Association, said the Indianapolis-based group understands the appeal of the using the financing model Bray wants to tap into but has concerns about the effectiveness of some safety barriers that have been used around retention ponds.

In particular, he said the association does not believe fencing is an adequate means of protection. He said fencing could even endanger children who might find a way into a fence-lined pond and then slip and begin to drown -- at which point the fence would be a barrier to would-be rescuers.

"Kids are naturally curious, they want to see what's on the other side, or just be on the other side. And once they get on the other side of a fence and get in trouble, how do the emergency responders get to them?" Wajda said.

He said that considering the high prices many lakeside homes command, some type of earthen mounding around a retention pond, or a guardrail along those adjacent to roads, might be a better idea.

"A lot of people pay a premium to be on the water, and you would think they would prefer some aesthetically pleasing barrier," he said.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on thebraziltimes.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Just another politician looking for another way to impose more control on us. I think in some way Mr Bray means well but where does this stop. This is another tax that will be imposed on every land owner who has a pond. Another rule for lawsuit attorneys to turn into more dollars in their coffers.

-- Posted by jddriver4960 on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 8:10 PM

Preventing death is great and all....but this seems a bit ridiculous. More government BS!

-- Posted by always skeptical on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 9:32 PM

Hey, don't people drown in creeks, rivers, lakes,seas, oceans, and bathtubs? Where is the barrier? Senator Bray, here's your sign!

-- Posted by Leo L. Southworth on Sun, Jan 9, 2011, at 10:47 PM

Gee, here's a thought, if the developers are required to build the ponds then they should be required to protect the ponds. Don't know about anyone else but that makes more sense than making home owners and businesses pay for it when they didn't put it in nor neccessarily ask for it.

-- Posted by Village_Id10t on Mon, Jan 10, 2011, at 10:57 AM

Instead of a retention pond install detention ponds, the differs is simple, detention only lets a small amount of water out during the rain event, but doesn't hold water between rains. A 6 to 8 inch pipes drains the entire pond slowly after the water stops coming in. Added benefit, you won't have the geese either. Doesn't cost much more to install and doesn't raise taxes. I thought the Republicans were for lower taxes, oh I forgot that was before November.

-- Posted by dirtboy7419 on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 8:01 PM

I'm with Village_Id10t, seems to me if a developer is required to build the retention pond, then the next step is to install the fencing surrounding it. I think these housing developments need follow-up when retention ponds are required, (we built in a housing development once, and then had water problems every time it rained, due to the developer not building the retention ponds it was required to do).

-- Posted by secretary on Sat, Jan 15, 2011, at 9:07 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: