WIBTA for filling in a man-made “pond” against some neighbors’ wishes?
Owning property in a semi-rural area sounds idyllic until unexpected maintenance burdens turn it into a constant headache. In this story, our OP, a property owner in an HOA with just 12 houses spread over 1,000 acres, has been forced to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining a man-made “pond” that turns out to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Originally just a developer’s misnomer for a filled hole fed by an irrigation headgate, the “pond” has become a magnet for trespassers, unruly dogs, and even ice-skaters—while beavers have added to the chaos by blocking outflows and causing floods. With no help from other HOA members, OP took it upon themselves to research and confirm that the pond is on their property, not common area, and decided it was time to end the nuisance.
Faced with neighbors who seemingly enjoy the spectacle of the pond, our OP offered a deal: if they like the pond so much, they should pay $10K a year for its maintenance. When the neighbors refused, OP decided to fill it in and plant native grass instead, using the funds from the fill. This bold move has drawn accusations of selfishness. But is our OP really the a**hole for reclaiming their property and peace of mind?
‘WIBTA for filling in a man-made “pond” against some neighbors’ wishes?’
Dr. Laura Emerson, an expert in property law and community disputes, explains, “When it comes to property rights, the owner’s decisions hold legal and moral weight, especially in cases where the feature in question—such as this ‘pond’—is not on common land.” Dr. Emerson emphasizes that if the pond is legally part of the owner’s property, then the decision to fill it in is well within their rights.
“Property owners are entitled to modify their land as they see fit, provided they adhere to local regulations,” she adds. In this case, OP took the initiative to have the property surveyed, confirming that the water rights and the land feature in question belonged solely to them.
From an environmental management perspective, Dr. Emerson notes that maintaining an artificial pond that has become a source of persistent problems—ranging from silting and beaver blockages to trespassing and unauthorized recreational use—can be a significant burden.
“It is not uncommon for property owners to invest time and money into maintaining features that ultimately cause more issues than benefits. When neighbors refuse to contribute financially, it only exacerbates the inequity,” she observes.
Moreover, Dr. Emerson stresses that the decision to fill in the pond is a practical solution to an ongoing problem. “If the pond’s upkeep becomes a disproportionate expense and safety hazard for the owner, converting it into a more manageable landscape—such as native grass—can not only reduce maintenance costs but also enhance the property’s overall value and aesthetic appeal.”
She acknowledges that while some neighbors may lament the loss of a visual landmark, their entitlement is misplaced if they never contributed to its maintenance or creation. Ultimately, Dr. Emerson concludes, “The key here is the clarity of property rights. If the pond is legally the owner’s, then their decision to alter or remove it is justified.
Neighbors who complain are overstepping by attempting to dictate the management of private property.” This expert opinion underscores that our OP’s decision is both legally sound and practically sensible, especially given the persistent nuisances the pond has caused over the years.
These are the responses from Reddit users:
The Reddit community overwhelmingly supports our OP’s decision. Many commenters stress that since the pond is legally on OP’s property, they have every right to do with it as they wish. Neighbors complaining about its removal are seen as overstepping, particularly since they never contributed to its upkeep. The consensus is that turning a burdensome, problematic feature into a manageable, low-maintenance landscape is a rational and justified course of action.
At the end of the day, property ownership comes with the right—and responsibility—to manage your land in a way that best suits your needs. While some neighbors might miss the quirky “pond” as a local landmark, the overwhelming reality is that its upkeep was a constant hassle and financial drain.
What do you think? Should property owners always be free to alter their land to suit their needs, even if it means disappointing a few neighbors? How would you handle a situation where a shared community feature becomes more of a burden than a benefit? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!