Laserfiche WebLink
3-6 <br />Seven county engineers in the Atlanta area were interviewed to determine <br />their opinions concerning the use of detention basins. Their answers make <br />interesting reading. <br />1. All the engineers noted that satisfying the ordinance requirements <br />is the only reason that most detention facilities are installed, <br />2. Few, if any, basins are installed to decrease downstream flooding but <br />instead are "designed" so that downstream flooding will not be increased. <br />3. All agreed that detention basins should not be required for all develop- <br />ments. Instead, studies should be conducted and basins required only <br />where they can be shown to have beneficial effects. <br />4. They cited maintenance as the most significant_ problem associated with <br />detention basins. They felt the county should maintain them in resi- <br />dential areas but the owners should be responsible for commercial property. <br />5. The most frequent complaints are related•to maintenance, appearance, / <br />- J <br />siltations and improper or inadequate facility design. <br />6. The primary impact of the basins is that while the volume of runoff is <br />not decreased, the rate of runoff is decreased. However, the engineers <br />acknowledged that the basins are not functioning as intended to <br />adequately control downstream flooding. <br />7. Only in the case of very large developments (20 acres or more) did they <br />feel the basins had a major positive flood control effect, <br />This is rather a long litany of problems for anyone considering the use of <br />detention basins. However, as stated before, rather than allowing the experiences <br />to sour us on detention basins, let us instead use these negative impacts to serve <br />as the basis of a philosophy for detention basins which will ensure that they will <br />look and function as they were meant to. The philosophy encompasses the following <br />main points. <br />