Porter County board continues Victory Christian Academy drainage request after staff warns discharge could worsen standing water

The Porter County Stormwater Board on a voice vote continued a request by Victory Christian Academy to discharge a detention-basin outlet storm sewer into a regulated swale near Whispering Hills subdivision, directing the applicant to work with county staff and the county attorney before returning.

Chelsea, the stormwater program head, told the board she conducted a June 25 site visit and observed "standing water near and downstream of the proposed discharge location" and that the channel bottom had a "pretty minimal bottom slope," which, in her view, meant adding a point discharge "could exacerbate the existing drainage concerns within this swale." She told the board staff’s recommendation was to deny the proposed outlet at the currently proposed location.

The applicant’s engineer (Kevin) said the project was designed to meet county ordinance release-rate standards and described a proposed level-spreader outlet and an alternative to run roughly 600 feet of pipe to tie into an existing detention-basin outlet. "All I can say is that we … adhere to the ordinance," the engineer said, adding the alternative tie-in would meet county flow standards and could reduce upstream overland flow in some conditions.

Board members pressed both sides on whether the observed standing water was a recurrent, long-standing condition or a temporary appearance tied to high-rainfall events; the applicant said multiple site visits over different seasons showed limited visible standing water, while staff and a nearby property owner reported recurrent wetness. Members also questioned whether the swale’s shallow slope — which several speakers described as under about 1% — limits meaningful grading or vegetation remediation without extensive county work.

Given those unresolved technical and downstream concerns, a commissioner moved to continue the case so the applicant could meet with staff and the county attorney and return with revisions or an agreement the staff could support. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The board emphasized that, absent a convincing engineering solution acceptable to staff, it would defer to staff’s recommendation in future action.

The applicant will confer with staff and the county attorney and return the revised proposal at a future meeting.