HomeMy Public PortalAbout724762MSD stormwater fee gets supreme legal test
By Jeff Tomich
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
May 18, 2013
It’s seven steps from Ron Cox’s patio door to the back of his lot, abutting Fishpot Creek.
The walk used to be longer. That was before erosion washed away a third of his back yard, trees and a
fence. Left behind was a 25-foot cliff overlooking the creek — a cliff that inched closer to his back door
every time the creek swelled from heavy rain.
Luckily for Cox, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District spent $1 million to rebuild the creek bank and
stabilize it with tons of rock to prevent further erosion. The initial work was completed in 2008 just
before the remnants of Hurricane Ike turned Fishpot Creek into a raging river.
MSD officials point to Fishpot Creek as an example of the kind of project needed to address stormwater
runoff across its 525-square-mile service area. But it’s also the kind of project it can no longer afford,
particularly west of Interstate 270, after a circuit court ruling in 2010 stripped it of its ability to charge a
stormwater fee based on the amount of impervious area on properties.
The so-called impervious fee was initially set at 12 cents per 100 square feet of rooftop, driveway, patio
or other impervious area on each parcel, or about $3 a month for the typical residential customer. The
fee would be gradually increased over seven years to 29 cents, or $7.25 a month.
But only months after it was implemented, the stormwater charge was challenged in a lawsuit by
William Zweig, a doctor from Chesterfield. Two other residents later joined as plaintiffs.
The court agreed with their argument that the fee was actually a tax and that it violated the Hancock
Amendment to Missouri’s constitution because MSD didn’t get voter approval. An appellate court
upheld the ruling 2-1 last year but agreed with the lower court that MSD didn’t have to refund $90
million it had already collected.
MSD goes back to court — the state’s highest court — on Tuesday in a last-ditch effort to save the
stormwater fee, which it says is critical to address a growing backlog of erosion, flooding and water-
quality problems.
“MSD is willing, it’s in our charter, to be responsible for these issues,” said Brian Hoelscher, MSD’s
executive director. “But you can’t be responsible unless you get the funding to be responsible.”
Richard Hardcastle, Zweig’s attorney, said MSD was simply arguing its case to the wrong party. The
issue, he said, isn’t whether there are stormwater problems to be addressed, or how much money is
needed to solve them. It is how the money is raised.
M S D m a y v e r y w e l l h a v e s t o r m w a t e r n e e d s , h e s a i d . B u t m a k e t h a t c a s e t o t h e v o t e r s a n d h a v e t h e m
a p p r o v e i t i n s t e a d o f m a k i n g t h e c a s e t o t h e j u d g e .
A T O U G H S E L L
I f M S D l o s e s a g a i n , i t w i l l h a v e t o d o j u s t t h a t .
I t w o u l d m e a n w e d n e e d t o v o t e a n d w e w o u l d b e g o i n g b a c k t o o u r s t a k e h o l d e r s a n d b a c k t o o u r r a t e
c o m m i s s i o n s e t t i n g u p a w a y t o v o t e o n t h i s , H o e l s c h e r s a i d .
N o t a x i s p o p u l a r . B u t a s t o r m w a t e r t a x i n p a r t i c u l a r w o u l d b e a t o u g h s e l l g i v e n t h e s t a g n a n t e c o n o m y
a n d s h a r p i n c r e a s e s i n s e w e r r a t e s r e q u i r e d t o f u n d $ 4 . 7 b i l l i o n i n s e w e r i m p r o v e m e n t s o v e r t h e n e x t
t w o d e c a d e s , h e s a i d .
T h e n a t u r e o f s t o r m w a t e r p r o b l e m s a l s o m a k e s i t c h a l l e n g i n g t o g e t a t a x p a s s e d . T h o u g h e v e r y o n e
c o n t r i b u t e s t o r u n o f f , f e w a r e s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d .
W h i l e i t m i g h t n o t b e o b v i o u s t o e v e r y o n e , s t o r m w a t e r r u n o f f , o r u r b a n r u n o f f , c o n t r i b u t e s t o a l a u n d r y
l i s t o f p r o b l e m s . E r o d i n g c r e e k b a n k s e a t a w a y b a c k y a r d s ; t h e l a c k o f s t o r m s e w e r s o r o t h e r
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i n a r e a s s u c h a s C o o l V a l l e y a n d L e m a y c o n t r i b u t e t o f l o o d e d s t r e e t s , y a r d s a n d
b a s e m e n t s .
R a i n w a t e r a n d m e l t i n g s n o w a l s o c a r r y s e d i m e n t , p e t w a s t e a n d c h e m i c a l s f r o m r o a d s , p a r k i n g l o t s a n d
l a w n s i n t o s t r e a m s , c r e e k s a n d d i t c h e s .
S t o r m w a t e r i s a h u g e p r o b l e m , a n d i t i m p a c t s w a t e r q u a l i t y i n a h u g e w a y , s a i d K a r l a W i l s o n , m a n a g e r
o f t h e D e e r C r e e k W a t e r s h e d A l l i a n c e , a n i n i t i a t i v e o r g a n i z e d t o h e l p c l e a n u p t h e c e n t r a l c o u n t y
w a t e r s h e d .
S e g m e n t s o f v i r t u a l l y a l l S t . L o u i s - a r e a c r e e k s a n d r i v e r s a r e a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r e d i m p a i r e d b y s t a t e a n d
f e d e r a l r e g u l a t o r s f o r r e a s o n s s u c h a s e x c e s s i v e l e v e l s o f b a c t e r i a o r t o o l i t t l e d i s s o l v e d o x y g e n
n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t a q u a t i c l i f e .
R e j e c t i o n o f t h e s t o r m w a t e r f e e m e a n t M S D h a d t o g o b a c k t o i t s f o r m e r f u n d i n g s o u r c e s a
h o d g e p o d g e o f d i f f e r e n t t a x e s p u t i n p l a c e b e f o r e t h e H a n c o c k A m e n d m e n t w a s e n a c t e d i n 1 9 8 0 . T h e r e
i s a l s o a f l a t f e e o f 2 4 c e n t s p e r m o n t h i m p l e m e n t e d i n 1 9 8 8 .
T o g e t h e r , t h e f e e a n d t a x e s r a i s e a b o u t $ 2 6 m i l l i o n a y e a r . T h a t s a b o u t $ 6 0 m i l l i o n l e s s t h a n M S D s a y s i t
n e e d s t o a d d r e s s a n e s t i m a t e d $ 1 b i l l i o n b a c k l o g o f s t o r m w a t e r w o r k . A n d t h a t l i s t i s g r o w i n g b y t h e
w e e k .
R i g h t n o w , t h e l e v e l o r l a c k o f s t o r m w a t e r s e r v i c e s y o u r e c e i v e d e p e n d s o n w h e r e y o u l i v e .
M S D c a n m e e t r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s r e l a t e d t o s t o r m w a t e r a c r o s s i t s s e r v i c e a r e a .
T h e d i s t r i c t c a n p a y f o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f p i p e s , m a n h o l e s , c o n c r e t e c h a n n e l s a n d k e e p i n l e t s f r e e o f t r e e
l i m b s a n d d e b r i s i n t h e c i t y a n d c e n t r a l c o u n t y w h e r e i t c o l l e c t s m o r e t a x r e v e n u e . I n p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t y
inside of I-270, it even has enough funding for a few capital projects over the next few years, such as a
controversial $1 million creek bank stabilization project in Des Peres.
But west of I-270, where residents pay only a 1.8-cent tax, it can’t afford even that. And any type of
capital investment in new stormwater sewers to alleviate flooding or repair eroding creek banks? Forget
it, Hoelscher said.
“If somebody calls with a backyard erosion problem, we’ll send an engineer out and say, ‘Yes, we see it’s
there.’ We’ll record the issue, and we’ll try to provide whatever advice we can,” he said. “Right now, in
that area, we can’t do anything for you.”
As time goes on, without an increase in funding, MSD says it will be harder to afford even basic
maintenance in the city of St. Louis and parts of north St. Louis County. And “we’ll probably have trouble
meeting our regulatory permit requirements,” Hoelscher said.
FAIREST SOLUTION
The funding solution deemed the fairest by MSD was a stormwater user charge based on impervious
area. In fact, such a rate structure is the industry standard for stormwater utilities elsewhere in the
country, according to a court brief filed on MSD’s behalf by the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies.
The impervious fee would raise $82 million annually by 2014 — an amount that MSD officials saw as
striking a balance between affordability and need.
There were exemptions for property owners with no improvements on their land. And properties that
drained directly into a large river received a 50 percent discount.
Hoelscher said the charge was seen as easy to understand and equitable. Right now, tax-exempt entities
such as churches, hospitals, universities and city halls pay for other utility services. But when it comes to
stormwater services, they pay only the 24-cent fee.
And given years of very similar legal wrangling in the 1990s over how to charge customers for
wastewater service, MSD officials suspected they might face a legal challenge on the stormwater fee.
So rather than basing the charge on the size of the property, the district used aerial photography to map
and measure impervious surface areas on individual properties to the nearest 100 square feet and
tailored individualized bills.
“We thought it was important to do that because of the history here and because of the Hancock
Amendment,” Hoelscher said. “That’s why we thought we were good.”
But Zweig’s attorneys say the lower courts got it right. MSD’s stormwater fee isn’t a user fee at all, just
“an expedient way to apportion costs.” They say there’s no direct relationship between the amount of
driveway or patio on someone’s property and the amount of stormwater “service” that MSD provides
that customer.
Ultimately, the Missouri Supreme Court will decide if MSD’s assumption was correct. So far, two courts
have disagreed.
Back in Ballwin, Cox still follows the legal fight over stormwater funding, but from a distance. He no
longer worries about creek bank erosion — an issue that consumed him for several years. He wonders if
his home would even be standing today if he and his neighbors hadn’t persuaded MSD to take action. Or
if MSD hadn’t had the money for the project.
“I was very fortunate,” he said.
Stormwater fee timeline
A brief timeline of events leading up to Tuesday's scheduled argument before the Missouri Supreme
Court:
March 2008 • MSD begins charging stormwater fee of 12 cents per 100 square feet impervious surface.
July 18, 2008 • William Zweig sues MSD, claiming stormwater fee is actually a tax and violates Hancock
Amendment. Two more plaintiffs are added in 2009.
July 9, 2010 • Circuit Court judge rules against MSD. The court later decides MSD isn't required to refund
$90 million already collected.
March 27, 2012 • Appeals court upholds lower court ruling by a 2-1 vote.