Unvetted amendment is wrong approach

Ameasure that would affect some 1 million Columbus water customers, dropped unvetted into the state budget like a tactical nuclear bomb, is ill-advised. The 11th-hour amendment inserted by a Worthington representative should be pulled by the Senate until its merits and consequences can be appropriately considered in separate legislation.

The amendment proposes to penalize Columbus — to the tune of up to $20 million in forfeited state local government funding — unless the city abandons its decades-long policy of requiring annexation for water and sewer service and equalizes charges between suburban and city customers.

Rep. Mike Duffey, R-Worthington, is carrying water for his constituents, many of whom view the city’s longstanding policy as double extortion: They pay more to grow less.

But Mayor M.E. Sensenbrenner’s forward-thinking strategy, forged in the 1960s, has served the big city and its suburbs well, allowing for planned growth and avoiding border wars. Columbus used its water service to restrain suburbs from leaving the city landlocked. They agreed not to merge with adjoining townships, cutting off city expansion corridors; Columbus grew from about 60 square miles to nearly 220.

The other source of contention, as raised in Duffey’s amendment, is the disparate water and sewer rates between “inside city” residents and “outside” customers. A typical Columbus resident pays $459 for water per year, compared with $597 for a suburban water customer.

The city’s 30 percent upcharge reflects that Columbus residents own the system, which is supported by ratepayers, not city taxes; they assume the risks. City voters backed with their “full faith and credit” the bonds that pay to construct reservoirs, maintain safe water (no lead, no poisonous algae) and comply with environmental EPA requirements.

By city residents authorizing their taxes to be automatically raised to repay the bonds, if ever needed, all ratepayers save on interest.

Duffey points out that Columbus’ water and sewer system is a monopoly: If the system tanks, Columbus could raise everyone’s rates. But city residents have taken on this risk, earning a discount. The suburban upcharge reflects this bonding risk, as well as distance and elevation challenges to serve the suburbs.

And the city didn’t pull the cost of service out of thin air: It’s based on National American Water Works Association guidelines. Cleveland and Cincinnati have similar surcharges — though Columbus’ combined water and sewer rates are lower. Further, Ohio courts have upheld municipal utility powers and rejected constitutional challenges to ordinances that require annexation as a condition of service.

This amendment mirrors Duffey’s “Win-Win” measure, which caused a furor last year as a budget amendment. It eventually was considered as separate legislation and succeeded in the demise of an unjust deal between Columbus City and suburban schools, but through public debate and a negotiated peace.

A discussion of the city’s water and sewerage system is not without merit, to increase understanding, achieve regional goals, and maybe give suburbs better leverage. But slipping an unvetted amendment into the state budget bill is a horrible practice that should be avoided. The Senate should pull this measure. Go to www.facebook. com/DispatchOpinion to give your opinion on this topic, and your comments could appear here this week.