Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Benton County hires consultant to rewrite drainage manual; planners press for enforcement and thresholds
Summary
County staff said Priest Nichols is drafting a stormwater drainage manual to standardize runoff calculations, detention standards and review criteria; planning board members urged stronger enforcement, higher design storms and guidance for small nonprofit and small‑scale projects.
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County planning staff told the Feb. 7 joint meeting that Benton County hired Priest Nichols to develop a standardized stormwater drainage criteria manual and that the first draft would be delivered to the county in mid‑February for a one‑month review before a final manual expected around mid‑May.
"Benton County has hired Priest Nichols, a third party engineering company, to develop new drainage criteria," planning director Nathan Crouch said, explaining the manual is intended to make drainage review and approval more uniform for engineers and reviewers.
Attendees raised technical and enforcement concerns. Participants cited inconsistent local practice in runoff coefficients and detention (one example in the meeting used a 0.4 runoff coefficient), recommended updating the county’s current 10‑year detention standard to align with many municipalities’ 100‑year standards, and urged clearer rules to require developers to analyze effects beyond the property boundary. Several planners and justices said small entities (for example, a small nonprofit expanding a parking lot) could face disproportionate engineering costs without a simplified, standardized pathway.
Staff said the manual should provide uniform calculation methods and that the planning department and road/engineering staff will have the opportunity to comment when the draft is circulated; the manual may be referenced in code so staff and applicants have a clear technical standard. No votes were taken; staff will return the draft to committees and the quorum court for review.
