Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hooper resident tells council irrigation runoff flooded his yard; seeks permit policy change
Summary
A resident told the council that irrigation water from a neighbor's system flooded his front yard and basement last summer and said he was denied a permit to connect a private drain to the city's storm system. He urged council review of the city's ordinance restricting private connections to storm drains.
Frank Thurgood, who said he no longer lives in Hooper but addressed the council as a nearby property owner, described flooding late last summer after a neighbor left irrigation on for several days. He told the council that water entered his basement and that—after attempting his own repairs—he sought a permit to connect a private drain to an existing culvert and to speed irrigation runoff from his property.
Thurgood said city staff told him Hooper City does not allow private land drain connections directly into the storm‑drain system. He noted an existing culvert about 50 feet north of his property and said he had paid previously to help install drainage in the area. After talking with the city's engineer and with staff in a neighboring municipality (West Point), he says the city denied the connection without explanation and he was not given a clear contact to resolve the issue.
Why it matters: the comment raises a localized infrastructure and ordinance question—whether private property owners can lawfully tie irrigation runoff to the municipal storm system and how staff communicate that policy to affected residents. Thurgood urged the council to review the ordinance and to provide clearer guidance and a contact point for residents handling irrigation runoff.
During his remarks Thurgood said he had paid privately to install a culvert and proposed a short connector to move irrigation wastewater into the drainage more quickly. He said city staff initially told him one engineer thought the plan was workable, but later he received a memorandum from city staff saying private connections are not allowed. Thurgood said he visited the city offices multiple times and was unable to talk to the responsible staff person.
Council members and staff acknowledged they had discussed the city's ordinance and said the matter merited council review. Council member remarks during and after the public comment period said staff would reexamine the ordinance language and the city's process for communicating drainage decisions to residents.
No council action was taken at this meeting; Thurgood's remarks were part of the public‑comment period and council asked staff to look into the ordinance language so the council could consider possible changes or clearer procedures.
