[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Freehiker

Argh, correct! I meant districts, apologies.

I must have missed the section that said the district has to keep the ponds Algae free and free of natural vegetation. Can you post that for us?

I’ll wait here.

No need to wait very long.

The District doesn't necessarily have to keep the ponds "Algae Free", they have to maintain them pursuant to their permits and rules promulgated by SFWMD, the State of Florida and subject to the US Clean Water Act.

Under SFWMD, they don't have to be "free from native vegetation", but non-native invasive species taking over, would likely be a violation of their permit.

Folks that don't understand how drainage works, are sometimes confused about "natural impoundments". A 6th grader would understand that a "broken pipe" has to be fixed, natural impoundments are no different. They have to be maintained in a way that their original design intent is maintained and in a way that doesn't significantly change the design habitat for flora and fauna. In simple terms, you can't build a "lake" and then allow it to become a "marsh". In most cases, that would be a violation of a permit. Wildlife habitat values, usually have to be maintained.

You can find the regulations here:

Summary of the Clean Water Act | US EPA

Drainage Design Guide

Watershed Management Program | WaterMatters.org

[Freehiker]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

No need to wait very long.

The District doesn't necessarily have to keep the ponds "Algae Free", they have to maintain them pursuant to their permits and rules promulgated by SFWMD, the State of Florida and subject to the US Clean Water Act.

Under SFWMD, they don't have to be "free from native vegetation", but non-native invasive species taking over, would likely be a violation of their permit.

Folks that don't understand how drainage works, are sometimes confused about "natural impoundments". A 6th grader would understand that a "broken pipe" has to be fixed, natural impoundments are no different. They have to be maintained in a way that their original design intent is maintained and in a way that doesn't significantly change the design habitat for flora and fauna. In simple terms, you can't build a "lake" and then allow it to become a "marsh". In most cases, that would be a violation of a permit. Wildlife habitat values, usually have to be maintained.

You can find the regulations here:

Summary of the Clean Water Act | US EPA

Drainage Design Guide

Watershed Management Program | WaterMatters.org

So they don’t have to keep them free of the things that people are complaining about; thanks!

[Maker]

Originally Posted by Freehiker

So they don’t have to keep them free of the things that people are complaining about; thanks!

That water is used for irrigation (south areas). By installing that system, it clearly implies that the water is suitable for that purpose. Now and in the future. That system was sold with the houses.

Allowing algae and other gunk to grow, plugs the irrigation systems.
Would they prefer to do proper maintenance now, or pay for irrigation repairs?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Maker

That water is used for irrigation (south areas). By installing that system, it clearly implies that the water is suitable for that purpose. Now and in the future. That system was sold with the houses.

Allowing algae and other gunk to grow, plugs the irrigation systems.
Would they prefer to do proper maintenance now, or pay for irrigation repairs?

What's growing or not growing in detention/retention basins, is generally unrelated to the TV irrigation systems.

[Maker]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

What's growing or not growing in detention/retention basins, is generally unrelated to the TV irrigation systems.

When that water is pumped out for irrigation use, and all that gunk plugs up sprinkler heads, I would say it is a direct cause and effect situation.
Water itself should be clean enough to be used for its intended purpose.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Maker

When that water is pumped out for irrigation use, and all that gunk plugs up sprinkler heads, I would say it is a direct cause and effect situation.
Water itself should be clean enough to be used for its intended purpose.

When the water that is pumped out for irrigation use has all that gunk and begins to plug up sprinkler heads then one might point to a cause and effect situation. However, I have seen no reports of sprinkler heads plugged from gunk in irrigation water.

Apparently, the water itself is clean enough to be used for its intended purpose.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Maker

When that water is pumped out for irrigation use, and all that gunk plugs up sprinkler heads, I would say it is a direct cause and effect situation.
Water itself should be clean enough to be used for its intended purpose.

So you're thinking they just put big, giant hoses into the detention basins and pump that water directly into your sprinkler heads?

You might want to familiarize yourself how an irrigation system functions, particularly those in TV.

[LeRoySmith]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I have seen no reports of sprinkler heads plugged from gunk in irrigation water.

Reporting in..... Many households in the southern areas are installing filters in their irrigation lines to filter out the junk from the ponds. During dry times the heads will plug up every few weeks for those that don't have the prefilter, when it's been raining it's not nearly as bad.