Council tactic sure looks hip, but who pays?

PositionLOCAL NEWS

Byline: Clive McFARLANE

COLUMN: CLIVE MCFARLANE

So, the Worcester City Council is mad as hell. So, it won't implement the "cost-prohibitive" provisions of the federal Clean Water Act, and is prepared to reinforce this defiance through civil disobedience.

That's just great.

After taking just about everything else away, the City Council is now moving to cheat residents of the right to be angry and demonstrative.

That's right. The city's defiant stance is meant to head off the certain revolt by residents if something is not done to rein in the cost of the Clean Water Act, which, as you know, sets goals and standards for a community's surface water quality, such as regulating discharges of pollutants into rivers, streams and ponds.

According to a white paper drafted by a coalition of communities, including Worcester, the current approach to satisfying the Clean Water Act mandate is likely in the "very near future to lead to a ratepayer revolt."

"When ratepayers decide they have had enough, a situation that is already playing out in some Massachusetts communities ... the results will be devastating for wastewater and stormwater utilities and the waters of the commonwealth," the white paper noted.

Worcester city officials contend that it will cost the city $1.2 billion to implement the act and that because no federal or state funds would accompany that mandate, local water users would have to pick up the full tab.

Sewer rates, for example, would increase by more than 300 percent, leaving homeowners with a whopping $1,000-plus annual sewer service cost.

"This is unacceptable, and we are not just going to sit here, wring our hands and say, `Oh dear, what are we going to do?'" City Councilor Kathleen Toomey said. "If we do that, people are going to say we are not doing anything."

Mayor Konstantina Lukes said the city's defiance is "a public stance that we have to take.

"We are at a breaking point," she said, alluding to the city's many economic challenges, such as its burgeoning foreclosure rate.

"It is clear that the property owners are drowning in taxes," she said.

"We have to let (the Environmental Protection Agency) know we are angry, and this is the most public way to make them understand. While they have the luxury of not having to pay, we have the burden to pay for this.

"And if you ask me whether we...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT