Cedar Rapids works to get it right on stormwater

Sometimes, government blows it. Then there are the times when it works hard to do the right thing and makes some progress.

Cedar Rapids blew it in the fall of 2012 when it declined to send a good, clear post-flood message about its commitment to reducing stormwater runoff. The city was replacing its laughably low, flat stormwater fees, but instead of implementing fees better reflecting the true cost of handling runoff with incentives to nudge property owners to stem the flow, it opted for slightly less laughable flat fees. A missed opportunity.

City leaders buckled to opponents who didn't want to pay the freight. They called it a 'good first step.” Watch government long enough, and you'll see a lot of those 'first steps” go off cliffs, never to be heard from again.

'What may be most frustrating is the message it sends. If a city devastated by flooding isn't willing to dramatically change the way it does business in the watershed, why should anyone else?” I wrote in October 2012.

But now, the city is working to do the right thing and make some progress. Sandy Pumphrey, a flood mitigation engineer with the city, public works Director Jen Winter, city council member Scott Olson and others deserve plenty of credit.

They've been working for months on a new stormwater fee structure that bases payments on the amount of impervious surface, usually pavement, present on a property. Water runs off pavement and into storm sewers, so the more pavement, the more water and the more cost to the system. It's so straightforward it's hard to believe it came from government.

The city council's infrastructure committee voted Tuesday to send a draft ordinance on to the full council, which will have the final word on the details. Maybe this time, members won't buckle.

Why should we care how much water runs into storm sewers?

Well, a city analysis found that Cedar Rapids' stormwater system has a $50 million backlog of needed upgrades. Those laughable flat fees, the highest currently is $3,133 per year, haven't provided bucks to keep up.

That analysis came after June 2014, when torrential rains led to incredible flash flooding in the city, damaging 50 home foundations, toppling trees, and leading to more than 300 calls for help with flooded homes and backed-up sewers. A teenage boy died after he was washed into a stormwater intake.

Like the flood of 2008, it's the sort of sobering stuff that makes people think a whole lot more, and differently, about water and how it should be handled. Reducing runoff lessens flooding and helps keep pollution out of waterways. As sound public policy purposes go, those are tough to beat.

And yet, it hasn't been a piece of cake. Pumphrey told the subcommittee that the city held four public open houses and many private meetings with property owners concerned about the change. For 95 percent of properties, including homes, the change will make little or no difference. For big private and non-profit entities sitting on acres of pavement, including Lindale Mall, Rockwell-Collins, public school districts, mobile home parks, etc., the change means a very, very large jump in fees.

So, of course, concessions had to be made. The fees will be phased in over five years instead of hitting all at once. And there are ample credits to offset the fees for properties that qualify. I like some better than others.

Of course, the best, most effective credits are for properties where owners take multiple steps to soak up runoff on site, replacing pavement with permeable surfaces, plantings, etc. If an owner were to achieve 'zero discharge,” or the ability to soak up a 100-year, 24-hour storm without generating runoff, the property's stormwater bill would be sliced by 75 percent. That's real money that should prompt real action.

I'm less enamored with an 'education credit,” which can slice up to a maximum 25 percent from a private property's fee or 50 percent of a non-profit's fee for implementing a water quality education program for its employees or students.

I certainly appreciate the value of education, and you can't achieve the full discount without creating a solid plan, reviewed annually, that includes several hours of instruction on multiple important topics conducted by instructors with certified knowledge. It encourages employees and students to embark on service learning projects. It provides credit for collaborating with local organizations and groups working for cleaner water.

That's all great, truly. And, hopefully, education leads to action. But an education credit can, technically, be awarded even if a property owner doesn't actually reduce one drop of runoff. That makes me uneasy.

But I also understand the addition of the education credit was needed to get the fee structure passed. I concede the effort does no good if it gets shelved.

'They make an effective case for change,” Tom Gentner, director of environment, safety and health at Rockwell Collins told the subcommittee Tuesday. He called the ordinance a 'fair and equitable system.”

Still, I'd like to see the education credit gradually reduced over time. The main focus should be on rewarding measures aimed at reducing runoff. Because, ultimately, that's how this effort will be judged. Was flooding mitigated? Was water quality improved? Was the costly load on the stormwater system lessened? Those are the metrics.

Sure, it's not perfect. But it's the product of a collaborative process between city officials pursuing a worthy policy objective and those most affected by that objective. That's how it's supposed to work.

And it's how it should work even when folks affected by city actions are not among Cedar Rapids' most important industries, employers and institutions. This willingness to listen, adjust and adapt while working to do the right thing should apply to every decision, not just the big ones.

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