FOLEY — Construction work approved by the city of Foley almost two decades ago may have come back to haunt the current administration.

During Monday’s regular City Council meeting, James Richardson of Foley approached the group about excess water from a city ditch collecting in his father’s yard.

“My father came to you regarding a drainage issue,” he said, explaining that he was following up on the matter.

“I spoke with Mr. Richardson,” Foley City Engineer Butch Stokes said in the meeting. “My recommendation I that we do not address this issue because it is a drainage easement. But Mr. Richardson’s opinion differs from mine.”

Richardson explained to the Council that when his father’s home was built in the 1990’s, it was done so with 36-foot culverts situated at the top of the hill adjoining the property. These days, he said, rainwater accumulates and sends runoff into his father’s yard.

“We’ve had as much as three feet of water in our yard,” he said, “and that’s not from us, anything we’ve done.”

Richardson explained that his father bought the property two years ago. However, he believed the house was built between 1992 and 1996, with the understanding that a drainage ditch would be situated on an easement.

“The city signed off on it,” he told the Council. “But if you go out there and put your eyes on it, you can see it was never dressed out and there was never a ditch put in. The city shouldn’t have signed off on it.”

Foley City Councilman asked Stokes whether he had seen plans for the ditch that should have been located on the easement.

“No,” Stokes replied.

Ebert added that he had seen the area in question and felt that structures obstructed the drainage area.

“Fences are obstructing the water drainage,” he said. “But you can’t tell whether they’re on the easement.”

Stokes added that it’s difficult to spot which area should actually be a drainage ditch.

“There’s very little or no depression back there,” he said.

Further discussion revealed that the property is not part of a home-owners association and that Richardson had not talked with the developer about the problem, contending that it would be argued that the city approved his work.

The Council agreed to look further into the issue.