Detention ponds are becoming more and more common in both single family and townhome community associations. Many counties in both North and South Carolina require detention pond installation in any new development. At their most basic, detention ponds are designed to perform two main functions; to collect and store storm water runoff, and to slowly release the water so that the sewers and waterways aren’t overwhelmed.
In almost all cases a detention pond within a community association will be considered common area and therefore the association will likely be charged with its maintenance as provided in the declaration. Often detention ponds are also subject to agreements between the county/city and the association. These agreements may call for the association to perform certain maintenance to avoid municipal sanctions (i.e. fines).
But what happens when a community association has maintained the detention pond in accordance with any municipal agreements, but the pond has continually caused damage to a neighboring property? This exact question is the subject of current litigation in York County, SC.
In Casey Zambor and Sarah Zambor v. Laurel Meadows Owners Association, the Zambor’s have alleged that the detention pond located on Laurel Meadows common area has repeatedly caused their property to flood, causing significant damages. In essence, the Zambor’s are arguing that the riser (the structure that allows water to leave the pond at a controlled rate) has not been maintained. The Zambors have claimed that the due to Laurel Meadows neglect, the riser becomes clogged during heavy rains forcing the water to leave the pond at an uncontrolled rate, causing flooding on the Zambors property.
Unfortunately, the first round of litigation in this case ended in a mistrial and the ultimate result is unknown at this point. However, some important lessons for communities with detention ponds can be gleaned here. First, even if a community detention pond has been maintained to county standards, that does not equate to being free of any potential liability.
Second, preventative routine maintenance is always cheaper than litigation. This preventative routine maintenance may be above and beyond the requirements of the county and may require extra expenses, but if the extra maintenance prevents future lawsuits, the increase in maintenance cost is more than justified.
In sum, the most important lesson here is that following county detention pond requirements, while important and mandatory, is not an absolute shield from liability. Communities with detention ponds should take proactive steps to ensure their detention ponds are functioning properly. Only then can the community be in the best position possible to defend itself from claims like those brought by the Zambors against Laurel Meadows.
If you have any questions or need clarification on your communities’ detention pond maintenance in North Carolina or South Carolina, we invite you to contact one of Law Firm Carolina’s experienced community association attorneys. Our team is committed to providing expert guidance and helping you navigate legal challenges with confidence.