An overhaul of Haverhill's storm water drainage system will be a big, expensive job.
Mayor James Fiorentini is correct to push for federal funds to help pay for it — the city should not be on its own to comply with a federal mandate.
But the mayor and the City Council should do all in their power to spare local businesses and homeowners from yet another fee of $50 or more to cover what he has estimated will cost $1 million a year to oversee drainage improvements.
In an era when businesses in the private sector have been forced to do more with less for years, it should not be too much to ask the city to do more with the same.
This is not to minimize the work, which must be done to comply with federal clean water standards. It is extensive and complicated, involving four major tasks:
The city will have to find and eliminate illegal sewer connections from private property to storm drains. It will have to track and map about 600 pipes that dump storm water into the Merrimack River, identify those that are carrying pollutants and then either divert that water into the sewer system or clean it before it flows into the river. It will have to track about 100 other places where storm water flows naturally into the river, and prevent pollutants from getting into that water flow. Finally, it will have to impose new regulations on most new commercial construction, to prevent storm water pollution.
The mayor notes, correctly, that Haverhill's water and sewer fees are less than those of some other communities in the region. But it should also be noted that prior to the passage of Proposition 2 1/2, sewer and water services were included in overall municipal budgets. So, residents and businesses now pay hundreds or thousands of dollars more every year for those services. The fact that the fees are not called property taxes does not make those expenses any less real.
The pressure is on the city now to launch a compliance effort, because the city needs the second phase of what is called a storm water permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection. But, especially if the city is not going to get any funding support, it has a powerful argument in a time of economic crisis that it needs extra time to comply.
Indeed, if the mayor is correct that all these improvements would not add "a single swimmable day" in the river, there ought to be a discussion about the wisdom of spending so much money for so little benefit.
The city should demonstrate good faith by beginning to identify sources of pollution, by using its existing staff and staying within the limits of its current fee structure. In response, the city's state and federal legislative delegations should fight to give the city some breathing room.
This problem developed over decades. It is not fair to demand that it be fixed in just a few years.
--
