Combined Sewer Systems: How One City Is Coping
CSO solutions prove a costly challenge for Cincinnatti area
Pundits offer a variety of reasons
for the problem of “why America’s cities are going down the drain.” Ironically
enough, considering the projected costs of solving the problem, one of the
reasons rarely mentioned is those drains—specifically, sewer and
stormwater drains and systems.
Municipalities built in the latter
half of the 20th century created their infrastructures for a different set of
codes than those in place when most major American cities were designed.
Beginning in the 1950s and ’60s, sanitary sewers and storm sewers were often
separated in new developments. Although the initial costs may have been higher,
these dual systems were better prepared to meet the changing federal regulations
that developed in the last 30 years of the century. As an added “bonus,”
unexpected rain events also didn’t put such a strain on the sanitary system; a
heavy downpour usually did not cause citizens’ basements to fill with raw
sewage.
 |
|
Drawing:
City of Indianapolis |
| Graphics such as this
above help illustrate the concepts of combined and separate sewer systems for
the public. |
Older US cities aren’t so
fortunate. Most still contain miles of combined systems, and in many cases the
cost and disruption of separating them would be a heavier burden than taxpayers
would tolerate. However, the problem must be solved; not only must stormwater be
managed to more exacting standards, but also sanitary system overflows are not
acceptable to residents and governments at every level.
“Our first sewers were built in the
late 1800s,” says Martin Umberg, sewers chief engineer for the Metropolitan
Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSD). “Actually, the first were storm
sewers, designed to move rainwater away from populated areas.” The reason? In
the early 19th century, sewage was dealt with on a building-by-building level;
outhouses were the responsibility of those who built them, and the waste usually
didn’t leave the site (although some did impinge upon groundwater). When “indoor
plumbing” became more common in the latter part of the century, homeowners
installed septic tanks or fields, a procedure still common in some areas.
However, metropolitan areas with little or no open land had to find other
outlets for waste, and the storm sewers were given a second use.
“At one time, it was thought a good
idea to have them combined—water keeps the sewage moving along,” Umberg
explains. “Now in most areas we have two sets of pipes; we treat the sewage and
just divert the stormwater.”
The existing combined sewer systems
still pose problems, and Greater Cincinnati’s MSD must develop solutions, at an
estimated cost of several billion dollars.
If the Suit Fits, Fix
It
In late 2001, the Sierra Club notified the MSD, Hamilton County,
and Cincinnati that it intended to sue them for allowing raw sewage to flow into
waterways. Alleging that more than 100 overflows discharged raw sewage and
industrial waste into the Little Miami River and Mill Creek (and, eventually,
the Ohio River), the Sierra Club estimated the governing bodies were in
violation of the Clean Water Act during 198 days of 2001. Unfortunately, MSD’s
storm sewers were designed to overflow in wet weather, and, even if separated,
sewer systems alone can overflow, as excessive rainfalls can fill sanitary
sewers with rainwater. (This can happen due to excessive infiltration, from
cracked pipes and from inflow of illegal storm drain connections.
 |
|
Drawing:
City of Indianapolis |
“Cincinnati is not unique in having
combined systems,” MSD Manager Bob Campbell points out. “There are 87 other
cities in Ohio alone.”
The MSD had not been ignoring those
problems; for some time, it had been negotiating with the US Department of
Justice (DOJ) for an affordable way to eliminate overflows, a problem the DOJ
had been addressing nationwide since the early 1990s.
In first quarter 2002, a federal
consent decree, negotiated between MSD lawyers and the DOJ, the USEPA, and the
Ohio EPA over the previous six years, was made public. A proposed interim
partial consent decree for the remediation of the 17 most active sanitary sewer
overflows in Hamilton County mandated that these problem areas would be
eliminated within five years, by 2007.
Long-term solutions were mandated
under the global consent degree, which require MSD to implement the program
addressing overflow problems by February 2022, unless the cost exceeds the
then-expected $1.5 billion. At such time, MSD would be given additional time to
complete the projects. According to the decree, MSD must:
- Design and construct 24
projects to reduce and eliminate combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
- Update its CSO Long Term
Control Plan by June 2006
- Enhance operations programs to
minimize overflows, to respond to overflow reports, and to notify the public
when they occur
- Invest $5.3 million in habitat
improvements, streambank stabilization, greenway development, and brownfield
remediation
- Pay $1.2 million in civil
penalties for federal and state agencies (for former overflows)
- Create a comprehensive response
program for water-in-basement complaints (and prevent such from
occurring)
- Develop and implement a
Capacity Assurance Program to ensure that the sanitary sewers have enough
capacity to prevent overflows
- Construct any facilities needed by
February 2022 (More time will be granted if the $1.5 billion cost is
exceeded.)
Public Input Before
Implementation
In
late 2005, MSD began presenting its plans to the Greater Cincinnati public. A
series of open-house forums were held, to gauge what problem areas were most
important to residents and which proposed solutions garnered the most
support.
 |
|
Photo:
GCMSD |
| Excess wastewater is
released into Muddy Creek, which winds through western Cincinnati, during a
rainstorm. |
“Public health is of the utmost
concern,” says Kathy Rahtz, MSD’s supervising management analyst. “We monitor
local waterways for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, and temperature, as well
as nutrients, metals, total suspended solids, BOD, and bacteria. We test
downstream from overflow points and stormwater inputs. We’re also monitoring the
Ohio River.”
“Everything eventually gets into
the Ohio. Luckily, the dilution levels are such that any pathogens, such as
E. coli, will be harmless by the time they get downstream to
Louisville,” says Bob Campbell. “That’s why we don’t worry about [upstream]
Pittsburgh.”
Some pollutants might not be all
Cincinnati’s fault; tributaries such as the Great- and Little-Miami Rivers run
through other heavily populated areas before reaching Hamilton County. Will
other Ohio counties be donating funds to the project?
“The State of Ohio and the USEPA
regulate the other counties too, but we’re not going to get money or help from
them. Northern Kentucky is now also under a consent degree and is working on its
own plan,” Rahtz explains.
Cincinnati MSD consults with other
cities in the same situation: “We belong to industry groups such as the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies; we compare notes and information from
around the country. We also belong to a five cities conference, which includes
St. Louis, Louisville, Columbus, and Indianapolis—so we know what other cities
are doing and get ideas from them,” she adds.
During a series of public meetings
in fall 2005, MSD outlined the problems and possible solutions:
- “Upgraded CSOs.” Ideas were
presented on collecting more water with the existing system; one means is to use
inflatable dams. If the flow exceeds a certain level, the dam deflates so
nothing backs up into basements.
- Storage tanks were offered as an
option. Underground tanks would hold onto overflows until more system capacity
was available.
- Building parallel pipes and/or new
sewers would definitely increase capacity, but its cost is prohibitive, and the
installation would be highly disruptive to neighborhoods and area
traffic.
Upgraded treatment plants were also
suggested; such a solution would offer a high rate of treatment, moving more
water through the system. “Satellite treatment plants” that would safeguard a
particular problem locale were also offered as an option.
 |
|
Photo:
GCMSD |
| Debris from an overflow
remains in Muddy Creek, causing odor and possible health risks.
|
Campbell emphasizes, “The
water-in-basement issues must be eliminated. As for the sanitary portion of the
flows, we must have reasonable capacity for dealing with it. MSD must reduce
CSOs, and we need public input to establish priorities of how/when we tackle
these issues. As for overflows, local streams that have very high ‘recuperation
potential’ might have to be used more. In any case, a combination of options
must be used to combat overflows.”
As for projected costs, Campbell
says the total price is “to be determined,” but that the massive project
“probably will exceed $1.5 billion.” Which revenue sources will fund this
project? “Right now, our primary source of income is user rates,” he notes. “We
will work hard to find funding outside of the city,” he adds, citing possible
federal and state financial help.
 |
| Each of the
county's watershed areas, which encompass 34 municipalities and townships and 30
Cincinnati neighborhoods, will be improved.
|
The public was asked to offer
priorities; as could be expected, residents were most concerned about the
waterways located in their neighborhoods, as well as those streams that were
easily accessible to people—specifically, children.
Drafting a
Plan
In early 2006, MSD developed its draft plan, which also
included input from Cincinnati City Council and Hamilton County Commissioners.
The amount of input garnered caused delays in the next round of public comment
meetings; originally slated for March, the public reviewed the plan in late
April and early May.
 |
| Proposed Conveyance
Alternatives |
During the meetings, Campbell
stressed that “the wet-weather program is more to solve overflows, not to
replace the sewer system. We must comply with the Clean Water Act and consent
decrees, but we must balance costs versus benefits versus environmental
regulations. We need to improve local water quality and quality of life here,
but we’re also concerned about costs.”
As one might expect, the public
survey results stressed that residents’ health was the most important factor
(80% of respondents). Sixty-seven percent of the public also thought that sites
with the worst pollution problems should be given first priority. With those
facts in mind, MSD’s goals were outlined:
- Maximize reasonable capacity, to
achieve no overflows in a typical year (events such as 100-year storms
excepted).
- Reduce sewer overflows, with
priorities given to environmentally sensitive areas, headwater areas, and urban
streams with easy public access. Streams with “strong recovery potential” would
be utilized more often.
 |
| Proposed Storage
Alternatives |
Detailed work plans were offered
for each of the county’s watersheds. “Our selection and solutions were made on
impacts on existing conditions,” Campbell explains. “We gauged the effects on
public health and water quality, the area’s expected future needs, the
affordability and cost/benefit of alternatives, and the local community’s values
and priorities. More weight was given to residential projects.”
A total of 380 projects, located in
34 Hamilton County municipalities and townships and 30 Cincinnati neighborhoods,
were outlined. The work is scheduled to begin in 2007, at an estimated cost of
$2 billion.
Along with overflows reduced in
typical year, MSD wants to reduce the number of combined systems. When overflows
do occur, odor and debris will be reduced, resulting in cleaner streams. One
important goal: no more water in basements.
To increase capacity, 94 new
sewer projects are planned, which will capture more flow for treatment. These
new projects should reduce storm- and groundwater infiltration, as well as
inflow from cracks and breaks in existing pipes.
 |
| Proposed Treatment
Alternatives |
Thirty projects of high-rate
treatment are proposed, which will screen solids and debris in wastewater, and
then disinfect the water before it’s released into the environment.
A total of 18 storage projects
should allow the system to “catch its breath” during heavy rains, resulting in
no overflows.
Where available land allows, 65
sewer separations are planned, to separate storm from sanitary sewers. Such
separation will keep some stormwater from treatment plants, which are often
overburdened.
Eighty-six regulator improvements
and 11 pump stations are proposed, which control how wastewater flows through
the combined system. These improvements will increase capture of wet-weather
flow.
Twelve projects will upgrade
treatment plants, increasing capacity and providing additional wet-weather
safeguards.
Eighty-four projects were listed as
“miscellaneous,” including lining deteriorating sewers to extend their life.
Installation of inflatable dams to store excess water was also mentioned in the
plan, as well as installation of grit pits, which would separate grit and dirt
from wastewater before it reaches treatment plants.
Campbell highlighted some specific
projects. “Muddy Creek [a natural waterway that winds through Cincinnati’s
heavily wooded west side] will receive a stormwater storage release tunnel,
which will keep the water out of the wastewater system, until capacity is such
that it can discharge to the Ohio River.”
On the city’s high-end-residential
northeast side, Sycamore Creek will receive a treatment plant optimization.
“These sanitary sewers act like stormwater sewers,” Campbell explains. “We have
to find out how to stop that.”
Mill Creek, a sometime-natural
waterway that has been lined with concrete for its run through the city’s
heavily industrial midsection, will receive separated sewers, as well as gain a
storage tank.
Filling the
Bill
Along with the
“good news” of problem solving, Campbell announced the “bad news”: Projected
costs have now crept up to $2 billion. As the USEPA had stated that costs above
$1.5 billion would allow MSD more time, MSD will apply for an extended
deadline.
“This project will increase user
rates,” Campbell says. “We hope to not exceed 2% of median household incomes.
Rate increases will apply to all MSD customers. Of course, the actual amounts
will depend on how many people are paying the bill,” he adds, an acknowledgement
of Cincinnati’s steady population decline.
Rates must generate the revenue
required for this project. Future user rates will depend upon the economy, the
number of customers, inflation, and rising construction costs. If people keep
moving out of the area, those of us left will have to pick up the
slack.”
As a comparison, MSD ranked its
rates against other local utilities. Where typical Hamilton County residents
paid $148 monthly for natural gas, $103 for electric, $60 for digital cable, and
$45 for high-speed Internet and phone service, sewer rates averaged $29, and
water, $15 (figures as of February 2006). MSD expects annual rates to continue
increasing throughout the life of the program, although it hopes to keep
increases to 10.5% per year or less. From 2006’s typical $29 per month
residential bill, costs are projected to rise to $58 per month by 2022.
(Estimates are based on information currently available.)
Advertisement
Campbell did offer a ray of hope:
Projects of this magnitude cannot be handled solely by local firms, and MSD’s
tasks will likely require an influx of construction crews from around the
country. “The temporary workers coming into the county will generate millions of
dollars for the local economy,” he says, adding that he did not anticipate any
assistance from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
After further public comments, the
plan was further revised, as its final draft was due to USEPA by June 30, 2006.
“We hope the USEPA will approve it by January 2007 so we can get under way,”
Campbell says.
Author's Bio: Janis Keating is a frequent contributor to Forester Media Inc. publications.
September 2006
Combined Sewer Systems: How One City Is Coping
CSO solutions prove a costly challenge for Cincinnatti area
Pundits offer a variety of reasons
for the problem of “why America’s cities are going down the drain.” Ironically
enough, considering the projected costs of solving the problem, one of the
reasons rarely mentioned is those drains—specifically, sewer and
stormwater drains and systems.
Municipalities built in the latter
half of the 20th century created their infrastructures for a different set of
codes than those in place when most major American cities were designed.
Beginning in the 1950s and ’60s, sanitary sewers and storm sewers were often
separated in new developments. Although the initial costs may have been higher,
these dual systems were better prepared to meet the changing federal regulations
that developed in the last 30 years of the century. As an added “bonus,”
unexpected rain events also didn’t put such a strain on the sanitary system; a
heavy downpour usually did not cause citizens’ basements to fill with raw
sewage.
|
|
Drawing:
City of Indianapolis |
| Graphics such as this
above help illustrate the concepts of combined and separate sewer systems for
the public. |
Older US cities aren’t so
fortunate. Most still contain miles of combined systems, and in many cases the
cost and disruption of separating them would be a heavier burden than taxpayers
would tolerate. However, the problem must be solved; not only must stormwater be
managed to more exacting standards, but also sanitary system overflows are not
acceptable to residents and governments at every level.
“Our first sewers were built in the
late 1800s,” says Martin Umberg, sewers chief engineer for the Metropolitan
Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSD). “Actually, the first were storm
sewers, designed to move rainwater away from populated areas.” The reason? In
the early 19th century, sewage was dealt with on a building-by-building level;
outhouses were the responsibility of those who built them, and the waste usually
didn’t leave the site (although some did impinge upon groundwater). When “indoor
plumbing” became more common in the latter part of the century, homeowners
installed septic tanks or fields, a procedure still common in some areas.
However, metropolitan areas with little or no open land had to find other
outlets for waste, and the storm sewers were given a second use.
“At one time, it was thought a good
idea to have them combined—water keeps the sewage moving along,” Umberg
explains. “Now in most areas we have two sets of pipes; we treat the sewage and
just divert the stormwater.”
The existing combined sewer systems
still pose problems, and Greater Cincinnati’s MSD must develop solutions, at an
estimated cost of several billion dollars.
If the Suit Fits, Fix
It
In late 2001, the Sierra Club notified the MSD, Hamilton County,
and Cincinnati that it intended to sue them for allowing raw sewage to flow into
waterways. Alleging that more than 100 overflows discharged raw sewage and
industrial waste into the Little Miami River and Mill Creek (and, eventually,
the Ohio River), the Sierra Club estimated the governing bodies were in
violation of the Clean Water Act during 198 days of 2001. Unfortunately, MSD’s
storm sewers were designed to overflow in wet weather, and, even if separated,
sewer systems alone can overflow, as excessive rainfalls can fill sanitary
sewers with rainwater. (This can happen due to excessive infiltration, from
cracked pipes and from inflow of illegal storm drain connections.
|
|
Drawing:
City of Indianapolis |
“Cincinnati is not unique in having
combined systems,” MSD Manager Bob Campbell points out. “There are 87 other
cities in Ohio alone.”
The MSD had not been ignoring those
problems; for some time, it had been negotiating with the US Department of
Justice (DOJ) for an affordable way to eliminate overflows, a problem the DOJ
had been addressing nationwide since the early 1990s.
In first quarter 2002, a federal
consent decree, negotiated between MSD lawyers and the DOJ, the USEPA, and the
Ohio EPA over the previous six years, was made public. A proposed interim
partial consent decree for the remediation of the 17 most active sanitary sewer
overflows in Hamilton County mandated that these problem areas would be
eliminated within five years, by 2007.
Long-term solutions were mandated
under the global consent degree, which require MSD to implement the program
addressing overflow problems by February 2022, unless the cost exceeds the
then-expected $1.5 billion. At such time, MSD would be given additional time to
complete the projects. According to the decree, MSD must:
- Design and construct 24
projects to reduce and eliminate combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
- Update its CSO Long Term
Control Plan by June 2006
- Enhance operations programs to
minimize overflows, to respond to overflow reports, and to notify the public
when they occur
- Invest $5.3 million in habitat
improvements, streambank stabilization, greenway development, and brownfield
remediation
- Pay $1.2 million in civil
penalties for federal and state agencies (for former overflows)
- Create a comprehensive response
program for water-in-basement complaints (and prevent such from
occurring)
- Develop and implement a
Capacity Assurance Program to ensure that the sanitary sewers have enough
capacity to prevent overflows
- Construct any facilities needed by
February 2022 (More time will be granted if the $1.5 billion cost is
exceeded.)
Public Input Before
Implementation
In
late 2005, MSD began presenting its plans to the Greater Cincinnati public. A
series of open-house forums were held, to gauge what problem areas were most
important to residents and which proposed solutions garnered the most
support.
|
|
Photo:
GCMSD |
| Excess wastewater is
released into Muddy Creek, which winds through western Cincinnati, during a
rainstorm. |
“Public health is of the utmost
concern,” says Kathy Rahtz, MSD’s supervising management analyst. “We monitor
local waterways for dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, and temperature, as well
as nutrients, metals, total suspended solids, BOD, and bacteria. We test
downstream from overflow points and stormwater inputs. We’re also monitoring the
Ohio River.”
“Everything eventually gets into
the Ohio. Luckily, the dilution levels are such that any pathogens, such as
E. coli, will be harmless by the time they get downstream to
Louisville,” says Bob Campbell. “That’s why we don’t worry about [upstream]
Pittsburgh.”
Some pollutants might not be all
Cincinnati’s fault; tributaries such as the Great- and Little-Miami Rivers run
through other heavily populated areas before reaching Hamilton County. Will
other Ohio counties be donating funds to the project?
“The State of Ohio and the USEPA
regulate the other counties too, but we’re not going to get money or help from
them. Northern Kentucky is now also under a consent degree and is working on its
own plan,” Rahtz explains.
Cincinnati MSD consults with other
cities in the same situation: “We belong to industry groups such as the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies; we compare notes and information from
around the country. We also belong to a five cities conference, which includes
St. Louis, Louisville, Columbus, and Indianapolis—so we know what other cities
are doing and get ideas from them,” she adds.
During a series of public meetings
in fall 2005, MSD outlined the problems and possible solutions:
- “Upgraded CSOs.” Ideas were
presented on collecting more water with the existing system; one means is to use
inflatable dams. If the flow exceeds a certain level, the dam deflates so
nothing backs up into basements.
- Storage tanks were offered as an
option. Underground tanks would hold onto overflows until more system capacity
was available.
- Building parallel pipes and/or new
sewers would definitely increase capacity, but its cost is prohibitive, and the
installation would be highly disruptive to neighborhoods and area
traffic.
Upgraded treatment plants were also
suggested; such a solution would offer a high rate of treatment, moving more
water through the system. “Satellite treatment plants” that would safeguard a
particular problem locale were also offered as an option.
|
|
Photo:
GCMSD |
| Debris from an overflow
remains in Muddy Creek, causing odor and possible health risks.
|
Campbell emphasizes, “The
water-in-basement issues must be eliminated. As for the sanitary portion of the
flows, we must have reasonable capacity for dealing with it. MSD must reduce
CSOs, and we need public input to establish priorities of how/when we tackle
these issues. As for overflows, local streams that have very high ‘recuperation
potential’ might have to be used more. In any case, a combination of options
must be used to combat overflows.”
As for projected costs, Campbell
says the total price is “to be determined,” but that the massive project
“probably will exceed $1.5 billion.” Which revenue sources will fund this
project? “Right now, our primary source of income is user rates,” he notes. “We
will work hard to find funding outside of the city,” he adds, citing possible
federal and state financial help.
|
| Each of the
county's watershed areas, which encompass 34 municipalities and townships and 30
Cincinnati neighborhoods, will be improved.
|
The public was asked to offer
priorities; as could be expected, residents were most concerned about the
waterways located in their neighborhoods, as well as those streams that were
easily accessible to people—specifically, children.
Drafting a
Plan
In early 2006, MSD developed its draft plan, which also
included input from Cincinnati City Council and Hamilton County Commissioners.
The amount of input garnered caused delays in the next round of public comment
meetings; originally slated for March, the public reviewed the plan in late
April and early May.
|
| Proposed Conveyance
Alternatives |
During the meetings, Campbell
stressed that “the wet-weather program is more to solve overflows, not to
replace the sewer system. We must comply with the Clean Water Act and consent
decrees, but we must balance costs versus benefits versus environmental
regulations. We need to improve local water quality and quality of life here,
but we’re also concerned about costs.”
As one might expect, the public
survey results stressed that residents’ health was the most important factor
(80% of respondents). Sixty-seven percent of the public also thought that sites
with the worst pollution problems should be given first priority. With those
facts in mind, MSD’s goals were outlined:
- Maximize reasonable capacity, to
achieve no overflows in a typical year (events such as 100-year storms
excepted).
- Reduce sewer overflows, with
priorities given to environmentally sensitive areas, headwater areas, and urban
streams with easy public access. Streams with “strong recovery potential” would
be utilized more often.
|
| Proposed Storage
Alternatives |
Detailed work plans were offered
for each of the county’s watersheds. “Our selection and solutions were made on
impacts on existing conditions,” Campbell explains. “We gauged the effects on
public health and water quality, the area’s expected future needs, the
affordability and cost/benefit of alternatives, and the local community’s values
and priorities. More weight was given to residential projects.”
A total of 380 projects, located in
34 Hamilton County municipalities and townships and 30 Cincinnati neighborhoods,
were outlined. The work is scheduled to begin in 2007, at an estimated cost of
$2 billion.
Along with overflows reduced in
typical year, MSD wants to reduce the number of combined systems. When overflows
do occur, odor and debris will be reduced, resulting in cleaner streams. One
important goal: no more water in basements.
To increase capacity, 94 new
sewer projects are planned, which will capture more flow for treatment. These
new projects should reduce storm- and groundwater infiltration, as well as
inflow from cracks and breaks in existing pipes.
|
| Proposed Treatment
Alternatives |
Thirty projects of high-rate
treatment are proposed, which will screen solids and debris in wastewater, and
then disinfect the water before it’s released into the environment.
A total of 18 storage projects
should allow the system to “catch its breath” during heavy rains, resulting in
no overflows.
Where available land allows, 65
sewer separations are planned, to separate storm from sanitary sewers. Such
separation will keep some stormwater from treatment plants, which are often
overburdened.
Eighty-six regulator improvements
and 11 pump stations are proposed, which control how wastewater flows through
the combined system. These improvements will increase capture of wet-weather
flow.
Twelve projects will upgrade
treatment plants, increasing capacity and providing additional wet-weather
safeguards.
Eighty-four projects were listed as
“miscellaneous,” including lining deteriorating sewers to extend their life.
Installation of inflatable dams to store excess water was also mentioned in the
plan, as well as installation of grit pits, which would separate grit and dirt
from wastewater before it reaches treatment plants.
Campbell highlighted some specific
projects. “Muddy Creek [a natural waterway that winds through Cincinnati’s
heavily wooded west side] will receive a stormwater storage release tunnel,
which will keep the water out of the wastewater system, until capacity is such
that it can discharge to the Ohio River.”
On the city’s high-end-residential
northeast side, Sycamore Creek will receive a treatment plant optimization.
“These sanitary sewers act like stormwater sewers,” Campbell explains. “We have
to find out how to stop that.”
Mill Creek, a sometime-natural
waterway that has been lined with concrete for its run through the city’s
heavily industrial midsection, will receive separated sewers, as well as gain a
storage tank.
Filling the
Bill
Along with the
“good news” of problem solving, Campbell announced the “bad news”: Projected
costs have now crept up to $2 billion. As the USEPA had stated that costs above
$1.5 billion would allow MSD more time, MSD will apply for an extended
deadline.
“This project will increase user
rates,” Campbell says. “We hope to not exceed 2% of median household incomes.
Rate increases will apply to all MSD customers. Of course, the actual amounts
will depend on how many people are paying the bill,” he adds, an acknowledgement
of Cincinnati’s steady population decline.
Rates must generate the revenue
required for this project. Future user rates will depend upon the economy, the
number of customers, inflation, and rising construction costs. If people keep
moving out of the area, those of us left will have to pick up the
slack.”
As a comparison, MSD ranked its
rates against other local utilities. Where typical Hamilton County residents
paid $148 monthly for natural gas, $103 for electric, $60 for digital cable, and
$45 for high-speed Internet and phone service, sewer rates averaged $29, and
water, $15 (figures as of February 2006). MSD expects annual rates to continue
increasing throughout the life of the program, although it hopes to keep
increases to 10.5% per year or less. From 2006’s typical $29 per month
residential bill, costs are projected to rise to $58 per month by 2022.
(Estimates are based on information currently available.)
Campbell did offer a ray of hope:
Projects of this magnitude cannot be handled solely by local firms, and MSD’s
tasks will likely require an influx of construction crews from around the
country. “The temporary workers coming into the county will generate millions of
dollars for the local economy,” he says, adding that he did not anticipate any
assistance from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
After further public comments, the
plan was further revised, as its final draft was due to USEPA by June 30, 2006.
“We hope the USEPA will approve it by January 2007 so we can get under way,”
Campbell says.