John F. Kennedy once said, “You can milk a cow the wrong way once and still be a farmer, but vote the wrong way on a water tower and you can be in trouble.” A similar thought is probably on the minds of the city aldermen in Davenport, IA, whose constituents are threatening to vote them out of office since they approved a stormwater utility in March.
Two articles in this issue deal with forming a utility, something that’s on many communities’ agendas these days. Both recount the work that went into preparing the ground ahead of time and the public’s reaction to the new arrangement. The stories, from Davenport and from northern Kentucky, have similar outcomes–in both cases, the utility was approved–but the paths to get there turned out to be very different.
Stormwater funding has become a minefield in many parts of the country, not only in finding a workable combination of funds to support a program but also in dealing with the political implications once you find what seems to be a likely source. Although Davenport used public outreach efforts to try to convince its citizens of the need for the new utility, opposition ran deep and, according to some who were involved, misunderstandings over whether a stormwater fee was “mandated” or not became amplified in the press and were a source of public confusion.
In one sense, not much has changed in the last few years. In an article back in our November/December 2000 issue, Brant Keller of Griffin, GA’s stormwater and public works department–the person who was instrumental in starting Georgia’s first stormwater utility–warned, “It can be very political. In some climates, if you vote in a utility, you won’t be reelected next time.” Even with the success of so many utilities in the five years since, and with the public ostensibly becoming more aware of stormwater issues, the statement still holds.
Davenport can take some consolation, at least, that it’s not alone in the reaction of its citizens. You don’t have to look far to find a similar debate somewhere in the country; just as we’re going to press with this issue, an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Warren County, OH, commissioners have suspended a $12-per-household stormwater management fee in the face of opposition. As one resident quoted in the article succinctly puts it, “Collect it somewhere else.”
In northern Kentucky, focus groups and workshops were also used to get a segment of the public involved and helped them “understand the link between stormwater runoff and water quality,” as one person involved in the process explains. Perhaps there was also something more appealing about sharing the financial burden, as more than 30 local governments decided to do in Kentucky, taking advantage of economies of scale and avoiding duplication of effort.
Even when public opinion goes against your plans, you still have to come up with a way to pay for your program, and the traditional sources of funding are often not enough to cover the costs. In upcoming issues we’ll be examining other funding options, including enterprise funds, special districts, bond financing, and grants, that some communities are using to offset some of their stormwater costs. We’ll look at the limitations of each type of funding and examples of how they’ve been put into practice.
StormCon ’05 taking place July 18–21 in Orlando, FL, also features presentations addressing funding issues and stormwater utilities, as well as a full-day preconference course called “Stormwater Funding and Utility Development.”
Janice Kaspersen
Janice Kaspersen is the former editor of Erosion Control and Stormwater magazines.
