Jim O'Reilly
Guest columnist

Dogs bark, cows moo, and consultants bill. The Hamilton County Commissioners should not follow blindly the stormwater billing scheme put forward by the paid consultants. (Enquirer, Aug. 17) In fact, billing a homeowner for rainwater runoff at a ratio greater than that charged to a business owner is directly contrary to what the 1999 stormwater cleanup rules intended - since much of the runoff related problem is caused by business and parking lot runoff, far more than the homeowner's minimal contributions. I voted "no" to this tax-heavy budget plan, as an elected municipal representative. I urge the public to wake up and ask "why should I pay this tax?"

The 2005 budget is just the start, just a paperwork exercise, for future concrete and steel construction of stormwater facilities. For the $2.3 million now, residents get no relief from puddles and ponds of rainwater. The Commissioners are correctly told that 2005 bills will be small, but the setup is wrong in two dimensions: we're doing the wrong tasks for the wrong tax amounts, and as future rates rise, the cost escalation will directly burden single family homes by an unfair ratio. A tier system oriented to runoff pollution makes more sense.

Consultants bill more hours when clients don't ask tough questions. The stormwater "oversight" failure typifies a lack of attention by volunteer, part-time officials to the messy details of tax-paid projects. MSD's consultant, who promised the state an elaborate and very expensive set of projects for the suburbs to pay for, went way beyond the set of minimum requirements stormwater Phase II rules require. The Dec. 8, 1999 federal EPA explanations are not as demanding as these consultants have imposed, with the result that we are paying for excessive, redundant costs. Let's do it right from the start!

The way we are forced to pay will matter a lot more in future years. First, older areas that have combined sewers get zero discount, though runoff into combined sewers is not included in these Phase II rules. Second, ratios that put the burden on single family homes mean your local auto body shop or pool chemical store pays less than your house pays for an equivalent space, though your home adds less to polluted runoff. Third, the $666,800 for legal fees and "technical" advice on adopting ordinances is absurdly large and volunteer efforts are underway to reduce those excessive costs. Fourth, existing county boards and workers are already doing many of these tasks.

Finally, federal EPA used its most flexible, feasible and minimal terms when describing what must be done - let's focus on that flexibility. Saving money by doing the basic tasks with existing staff makes sense. Our Smale Commission got it right in recognizing that environmental cleanup requires careful planning. Here, well meaning volunteers followed consultants' advice into a major mistake. Let's not rush onto the January tax bill with a high tax, low return project. Let's examine the consultants' assumptions - and remember about stormwater tax programs: "It's not rocket science, it's rainwater."

---

Wyoming City Councilman Jim O'Reilly is the Municipal League alternate member on the Stormwater Oversight Board and a veteran scholar of environmental law issues.