Drop idea to charge for water

The City of Cedar Rapids has a difficult task ahead of it as it prepares to move forward with west side flood protection.

Depending on where the city's planned system of levees, green space and flood walls will be built, some remaining property owners in the remnants of the flooded Time Check neighborhood will be faced with selling their property to the city.

Last week, the City Council approved a 90-day moratorium on new development in the neighborhood, discouraging residents from making any significant improvements to their properties.

That seems reasonable. Much less reasonable was the council's discussion of potentially charging this handful of residents thousands of dollars for the privilege of having safe drinking water. With so few property owners left in the area, water usage has dropped, leading to quality issues.

'We discovered in this area that the residual chlorine, or the chlorine that's kind of hanging out in the water, was lower than we wanted it to be. It didn't go below the threshold that would make it unsafe, but it was definitely needing attention,” said Megan Murphy, utilities communications coordinator. 'What happens is we have chlorine that sits in the water, but that chlorine has a life span. So the longer that water is out in the system, the longer the chlorine has to dissipate.”

To keep the water flowing and chlorine levels up, the city flushes hydrants in the neighborhood, at a cost of $60,000 annually.

Council member Kris Gulick argued that the cost should be assessed to remaining residents. We strongly disagree with that idea.

For starters, in a city expected to collect $33.1 million from its water customers this fiscal year, $60,000 is a drop in the bucket. But it would be a financial deluge for these remaining residents, who, for various reasons, did not take part in a voluntary post-flood buyout program. The city gave them that choice.

Given the importance of the flood protection project, this sort of heavy-handed approach isn't constructive. The city's goal should be to reach fair settlements with these property owners. It's tough to see how hitting them with big water bills accomplishes that goal. We're also troubled to hear that the city did not contact these property owners before approving the moratorium.

The is a vital project. The city has used its positive powers of persuasion to secure funding. These residents deserve the same.

' Comments: (319) 398-8262 or editorial@thegazette.com