Three neighborhood drainage concepts
Three nearby projects rank second, third, and fourth among eight projects evaluated in the final March 2026 report:
| Area | Report ranking | Estimated construction cost |
|---|---|---|
| BMP 1: Driftwood / Westwinds / Morningside Five outfall-pipe upgrades | 2 of 8 | $421,494 |
| BMP 2: Crosswinds / Baywood Three outfall-pipe upgrades | 3 of 8 | $205,244 |
| BMP 3: Gulfwinds / Eastwinds Two outfall-pipe upgrades | 4 of 8 | $145,581 |
The ideas include larger drainage pipes and devices to help keep tidal water from flowing backward through them. These are early planning estimates. We still need to find out whether the County has funded or scheduled any of the work.
Why it matters: we can ask about named projects and their next steps, and make sure canal concerns are part of those conversations.
Use this reference with County staff: Klosterman Bayou Watershed — Best Management Practice Alternatives Analysis Report, March 2026 final, sections 5.1–5.3; contract 190-0353-NC (SS), District project Q083. BMP 1–3 are the study’s alternative numbers. Ask staff to identify any corresponding County capital-project or work-order numbers.
BMP 1: five outfalls around Driftwood and Westwinds
The study includes Morningside in the project area; its five proposed pipe replacements are listed on Driftwood and Westwinds. Sizes below are pipe diameters; lengths are the report’s proposed replacement lengths.
- Westwinds Drive, north side: 18-inch pipe to 30-inch; 120 feet.
- Driftwood Drive West: 24-inch to 30-inch; 120 feet.
- Driftwood Drive South: 18-inch to 30-inch; 130 feet.
- Driftwood Drive East: 18-inch to 24-inch; 125 feet.
- Westwinds Drive, east side: 15-inch to 24-inch; 110 feet.
Ask the County: “Which asset IDs and easements match these five outfalls, and when were they last inspected or cleaned? Has BMP 1 moved into preliminary engineering, design, or funding? Please provide the latest scope and explain how sediment capture and maintenance would be addressed.”
Source: §5.1.1, printed pp. 13–14 (PDF pp. 15–16), Figure 5. The study models about 0.75 feet less street-flooding depth in its baseline 10-year, 24-hour storm; this is a modeled result, not completed work.
BMP 2: three outfalls on Crosswinds and Baywood
- Crosswinds Drive, west side: 15-inch pipe to 24-inch; 115 feet.
- Crosswinds Drive, central: 18-inch to 30-inch; 140 feet.
- Baywood Drive: 18-inch to 24-inch; 130 feet.
Ask the County: “What is the current status of these three outfalls? Please identify the responsible project manager, funding and engineering status, and any inspection or cleaning records. How would rainfall drain when tide levels prevent the proposed backflow devices from opening?”
Source: §5.2.1, printed pp. 21–22 (PDF pp. 23–24), Figure 11; tidal limits in §5.2.2, printed pp. 25–27 (PDF pp. 27–29). The baseline model shows about 1.4 feet less street-flooding depth in the 10-year, 24-hour storm.
BMP 3: Eastwinds Court and the eastern Gulfwinds outfall
- Eastwinds Court: 15-inch pipe to 30-inch; 140 feet.
- Gulfwinds Drive, eastern pipe: 18-inch to 24-inch; 120 feet.
Ask the County: “Please locate these two pipes on the County asset map and identify the receiving canal and maintenance responsibility. Is BMP 3 being advanced, and what is the next decision or funding milestone? Can its engineering review include sediment controls and coordination with a canal-depth assessment?”
Source: §5.3.1, printed pp. 29–30 (PDF pp. 31–32), Figure 17; evaluation on printed pp. 31–32 (PDF pp. 33–34). The baseline model shows about one foot less street-flooding depth in the 10-year, 24-hour storm.
Each concept also considers backflow prevention. None includes substantial water-quality treatment or canal dredging. Ask for a written status on each alternative, a staff lead, and a follow-up date; the report’s rankings and costs do not establish an adopted County project or schedule.
Better drainage won’t take care of everything.
The neighborhood pipe projects are aimed at reducing street flooding. They don’t include substantial treatment to clean the runoff, and they don’t remove sediment already in the canal. The report also finds that more measures would be needed under the future high-tide conditions it tested.
Why it matters: we need to keep sediment prevention, drainage, and canal restoration on the table together. A larger pipe by itself is not a canal restoration plan.
Report references
Report pages, project numbers, and technical details
Nearby drainage projects
The table above comes from the Best Management Practice Alternatives Analysis Report, marked March 2026 final, printed pp. 66–67 (PDF pp. 68–69). Its project numbers are BMP 1 (Driftwood/Westwinds/Morningside), BMP 2 (Crosswinds/Baywood), and BMP 3 (Gulfwinds/Eastwinds). BMP means “best management practice”—the report’s term for an improvement project.
For Gulfwinds/Eastwinds, the concept enlarges the Eastwinds Court pipe from 15 to 30 inches and the eastern Gulfwinds pipe from 18 to 24 inches. It models about one foot less street flooding in a 10-year, 24-hour storm under its baseline conditions. See printed pp. 29–32 (PDF pp. 31–34). These are modeled results, not observed improvements.
The report’s benefit/cost ratios are 4.27, 5.47, and 3.11 for projects 1, 2, and 3, using a 7% discount rate and 30-year life. Those calculations and rankings do not establish funding or a construction schedule.
Sediment, water quality, and tides
The May 2025 Surface Water Resource Assessment, §3.5.3, printed pp. 28–29 (PDF pp. 32–33), records residents’ sediment/erosion concerns and recommends inspections, sediment sampling, and storm monitoring.
The alternatives report describes the neighborhood projects’ water-quality limits on printed pp. 15, 23, and 31. Section 4.1 and sections 5.1–5.3 evaluate a 2070 intermediate-high tidal scenario and explain why additional measures would be needed. This is a planning scenario, not a prediction for an individual property.
The report also evaluates BMP 8, the Innisbrook outfall, ranked fifth of eight. Automated gates and sensors would manage water in a roughly 190-acre contributing pond system. An example calculation estimates additional annual removal of about 13.8 pounds of nitrogen and 5 pounds of phosphorus—not sediment dredged from the canal. Further flood modeling was not completed for that option. See §5.8, printed pp. 60–65 (PDF pp. 62–67).
The April 2024 floodplain report, §§2.4.3–2.4.6, printed pp. 11–12 (PDF pp. 16–17), describes drainage surveys and limited tidal-canal modeling. That work does not provide a complete survey of today’s canal depths and sediment.
Other questions for technical follow-up include reclaimed-water flow assumptions, treatment through irrigation and ponds, and the operating status of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery project described in the May 2025 assessment.
Open the protected records archive for the complete watershed report ZIP (about 221 MB), geographic/model ZIP (about 216 MB), and historical records. An access code is required. Geographic files still need technical review.