St. Charles Parish committee debates tougher enforcement, inspections for adjacent-lot runoff ordinance

The St. Charles Parish legislative committee on Sept. 8 debated proposed amendments to the parish's adjacent-lot runoff ordinance (Section 7.3) that would broaden inspection authority, require certified drainage plans and add staged construction inspections.

Committee members and staff said the changes are intended to protect residents who experience new or increased runoff after neighboring construction; parish officials warned the proposed enforcement duties would require more staff and could expose the parish to liability and increased costs.

Supporters said the current rule leaves some residents without relief when approved drainage later fails or is altered during construction. Councilmember O'Daniels said she has worked with planners and legal to draft language that would allow the Department of Planning and Zoning to inspect, identify deficiencies and require corrective work. "Failure to maintain drainage per the approved plan as set forth in this section is subject to inspection and shall be considered a violation of the building permit as issued and may be subject to enforcement actions," O'Daniels said during committee discussion.

The proposed amendments would: require that drainage plans be stamped by a civil engineer licensed to practice in Louisiana; clarify the definition of a "legal drainage conveyance" (for example, an existing ditch, swale, open channel, canal or a street curb leading to a storm drain); require submittal of proposed drainage plans prior to placement of fill; require topographic surveys as-built or as a condition of final certificate of occupancy; and create inspection procedures during construction, including field inspections and a final verification with a topographic survey before occupancy.

Parish engineering staff and the administration raised concerns about the practical burden of routine inspections. Parish Engineer Bingham and Parish President Jewell said engineering and quality-assurance (QA) staff are already stretched thin inspecting public projects and responding to frequent resident requests. "We don't have enough QAs as it is to go out and do the actual drainage projects on the streets within our servitudes," the administration representative said, adding that adding systematic private-property inspections would require additional positions or contractors.

Legal and enforcement considerations featured heavily in the discussion. The parish’s legal representative noted the existing civil process — residents may sue neighbors under state law — and described how the parish's enforcement typically mirrors other code enforcement processes: notice, opportunity to cure, litigation and, if necessary, remediation with costs placed as a lien on the property. Legal staff warned that the parish would need consistent, technically competent evidence (topo surveys, engineering reports and inspectors' testimony) to prevail in court and to recover costs.

Council members described specific neighborhood incidents that motivated changes. Councilmember Pillier described visiting a case where newly placed fill and driveway flatwork altered drainage so the adjacent property drained into a neighbor’s house; he said he helped secure a curb that reduced the immediate problem but argued for clearer enforcement tools. Councilman Kagan and others stressed the proposal should focus on new construction or placement of fill rather than an open-ended program that would create continual inspection obligations.

Committee members debated technical details in the draft: minimum chain-wall height wording (proposed language set a minimum not less than 6 inches above the perimeter fill level), an 8-inch minimum for a specified swale depth option for lots under one acre, the number and routing of drainage inlets, and whether as-built topographic surveys should be required prior to final occupancy.

The committee did not take a final vote on the ordinance in the session recorded in the transcript. Members asked staff to continue refining the language and to work across departments to develop practical inspection procedures and estimated staffing implications before returning the measure for further action.

The discussion made clear the council’s objectives — protecting adjacent-property owners from new runoff caused by construction — while highlighting the administration’s operational concerns about staff capacity, evidentiary needs for enforcement and potential civil-liability exposure.

Looking ahead, committee members asked planning, public works and legal to meet and propose a streamlined inspection protocol limited to specific triggers (for example, placement of fill that exceeds certain thresholds or during construction stages) and to analyze budget or contracting options for any added inspection workload.