Clayton Christian Church seeks to pipe a ditch; county engineers warn of hydraulic risks

Representatives of Clayton Christian Church told the Town of Clayton council they plan to fill and pipe an open drainage ditch on church property to improve access and address safety concerns, but county and consulting engineers cautioned the project could reduce hydraulic capacity during high‑volume storm events.

"They were not vague about — no way we would ever approve something like this because of the hydraulics of that open ditch allows much more water to flow freely than closing it even with a 24‑in pipe," a council member reported, summarizing advice from Banning Engineering and the Hendricks County engineer.

Jason Owen, who identified himself as a church vice chairman, described repeated maintenance hazards — including mowers falling into the ditch — and said the church would fund the work. "We're covering the cost. We're not asking anything from the town," he said. An excavation estimate shown to council was roughly $76,000.

Town staff told the council they searched county records and found no recorded town easement for the ditch. That gap in the record led the council president to say the town could not formally direct the church either to proceed or to stop the work. "We're not going to recommend for or against this; if you want to undertake this at your own risk, that's kind of the position," the council president said.

Council members pressed the church on technical mitigations that an engineer could design into the project, such as intervals of open pipe, overflow ports or other graded inlets to preserve flood conveyance and ensure upstream overflow would not inundate neighboring properties. Church representatives said they could work with an engineer to include such safety measures.

Council asked staff to try to identify the original starting point of the ditch (an 8‑inch pipe noted in an adjacent property) and to confirm whether neighboring property owners had been informed; church representatives said they had communicated with nearby residents. The council did not take a formal vote on the matter.

Next steps include additional engineering review if the church chooses to proceed and staff follow‑up to confirm historic records and to document any design that addresses hydraulic concerns.