Backers of Cedar Rapids’ proposed soil ordinance are determined

Todd Dorman, 24 Hour Dorman

Last fall, I figured the debate in Cedar Rapids over restoring soil on building sites and reducing runoff might begin to unravel like the one I followed at the state level.

Builders and developers would claim putting dirt back on lots to soak up more rushing runoff would cost too much, and elected officials often eager to help out business pals would buckle. At the state level, a 'stakeholder” panel packed with homebuilding interests and an Environmental Protection Commission packed with Gov. Terry Branstad's appointees were determined from the get-go to scrap a state rule requiring topsoil restoration. Mission accomplished.

But here in Cedar Rapids, I'm sensing the determination is now on the other side of the issue.

'We have to do something,” said city council member Scott Olson, chair of the council's infrastructure committee. He strongly supports a city effort requiring builders to create a soil quality plan for restoring or augmenting topsoil on finished sites.

That plan was panned before Olson's committee Wednesday afternoon by builders and developers. Dustin Kearn, a developer with DK Land Services, estimated the ordinance could add more than $10,000 to the cost of a lot, depending on the circumstances. The city's estimate is much closer to $3,000. Pinning down a cost estimate that applies to all options and circumstances is very difficult.

But unlike those state panels eager to do builders' bidding, Olson and fellow committee member Justin Shields gave the clear impression that criticism would be acknowledged, alternatives would be considered, but, in the end, change is coming.

And that's because the city has a plan, actually multiple, intertwined plans addressing stormwater, sanitary sewers and streets. Reducing runoff - to lessen the risk of flash flooding, improve water quality and curtail storm sewer expansion and maintenance costs - is a key facet. That's why the city wants builders to leave finished housing lots that soak up much more runoff than stripped, compacted clay yards. That's also why the city is considering higher stormwater fees based on a property's impervious surfaces, while also providing breaks for property owners who take steps to reduce runoff.

Cedar Rapids has seen epic flooding and flash flooding. It's got aging stormwater infrastructure that will cost tens of millions of dollars to repair and update. Reducing runoff isn't some green dream, it's become a public necessity. The cost of doing nothing has become too high.

So with momentum running in the other direction, builders and developers are calling for delay, for more study, a cost-benefit analysis and potential compromises. They sounded a lot like frustrated folks at the state level trying to slow down the topsoil bulldozer.

So I sympathize. And, truth is, there's still plenty of time for input and ideas. The committee won't take up the issue again before March, with full city council consideration unlikely before May. The rule, if adopted, wouldn't take effect until 2017. So if homebuilders and allies have ideas for improving he rule, have at it.

But it has to be an idea for doing something, not nothing.

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