Cedar Rapids soil rule put on hold for the holidays

So the city's effort to require replacement of topsoil or other runoff-absorbing materials on finished construction sites is on shakier ground than I anticipated. So much for my Sunday optimism.

Tuesday evening, the City Council's Infrastructure Committee delayed recommending that the full council approve a soil-quality ordinance, perhaps as early as December. Members Scott Olson and Ralph Russell (Ann Poe was absent) agreed to give local builders and developers more time to complete an analysis of how much the ordinance would cost to implement. Now, a council vote is unlikely before February.

Throughout the meeting, developers, builders and allies argued that the ordinance could add thousands of dollars, maybe as much as $10,000, to the cost of a home. Some scoffed at a city estimate it would add $1,000 to $1,500 to the price of developing a 5,000-square-foot lot, arguing that most lots are bigger, and that the city failed to account for what they called 'soft costs.” They also insist the city is moving too fast.

I should have seen this coming, having heard it all before at the state level. Once again, it seems the deciding factor in this process will be cost estimates created by interests wary of a soil-quality requirement. Spoiler alert, the analysis will show it's expensive.

Am I saying builders and developers are dishonest? Of course not.

But I've been watching policy debates for more than two decades. It's pretty common for data developed by interests with a dog in the fight to lean in the direction of an outcome they seek. That data is considered, certainly, but with an asterisk. That's why it's so important for policymakers to also seek independent analysis to get a clearer view.

No one, at this point, is talking about getting a nonbiased view of this ordinance. And, as usual, nobody is seeking a cold, clear-eyed estimate of the true costs of doing nothing to soak up more runoff, the price we'll pay for dirtier water, unmitigated flash flooding and dysfunctional yards long after builders have moved on.

On Wednesday, the Iowa Sierra Club said it's been told a planned topsoil cost-benefit analysis by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, requested by state legislators, is being shelved. Why? It's too expensive. Bureaucratic blinders are cheaper.

To their credit, city staff seem to appreciate the long view and benefits of cutting runoff. Sewer Superintendent Jon Durst said, as he works on this issue and the city's broader comprehensive stormwater plan, he is driven by what he heard and saw during severe flash flooding in 2014.

He sees the soil quality ordinance as a critical proactive, preventive measure he concedes will have a cost.

'But in time, we're going to see the dividends,” he said.

Public Works Director Jen Winters addressed worries, but didn't back away from the need for action. 'Doing nothing isn't one of our options,” she said.

'We want to work with the developers group,” council member Olson said. 'But we intend to come up with a plan.”

So resolve remains. The big question is what will the full council do? Any prediction at this point would be shaky.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com