Creation of Muskingum Watershed subdistrict not without opposition

In the spring and summer months, the onset of rainstorms rolling across Richland County bring with them the very real threat of flooding, impacting cities of all sizes across the county. Since 1933, the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) has worked to develop and implement plans to reduce flooding and conserve water for beneficial public uses in the Muskingum River Watershed, the largest wholly contained watershed in Ohio, stretching across 18 counties.

Through the creation of subdistricts – smaller organizations located within the boundaries of a conservancy district – the MWCD has used its resources to localize flooding prevention. Recently, steps have been taken in creating yet another subdistrict to attempt to reduce local flooding, with mixed feedback from government officials and citizens.

During a meeting at Charles Mill Lake Park near Mansfield on May 16, the MWCD Board of Directors authorized the MWCD staff to present a petition requesting the creation of the Clear Fork Subdistrict of the MWCD to the Conservancy Court for its review and consideration. If the 18-judge Conservancy Court of the conservancy district approves the petition, the MWCD will assist the newly created Clear Fork subdistrict with the development of a plan to address the flooding that has occurred along the Clear Fork.

The Conservancy Court, made up of one common pleas judge per county in the watershed, will meet for its annual session on June 7 in New Philadelphia. According to conservancy district law, the Conservancy Court holds the authority to approve or reject requests for subdistricts.

The petition was presented with resolutions of support from local governments including the Richland County Commissioners, the city of Ontario, the villages of Butler and Lexington and several townships, as well as the Richland County Soil and Water Conservation District. Bellville Mayor Darrell Banks has led the efforts to create the Clear Fork Subdistrict after the flooding problem in his village has escalated in recent years. Bellville Village Council approved an ordinance earlier this year to submit a petition to the MWCD requesting the creation of the Clear Fork Subdistrict.

“When they took out the railroad and put in the bike trail, the amount of flooding in Bellville increased considerably,” said Banks. “We asked the conservancy district to come in and talk to us about what they could do.”

The entire watershed of the Clear Fork is located primarily in southern Richland County, with smaller portions in southern Ashland, northern Knox and northeastern Morrow counties. The requested Clear Fork subdistrict boundary is limited to Richland County only, as stressed by Banks and other officials who attended the May 16 meeting in support of the petition.

However, the efforts to create the Clear Fork subdistrict have not come without opposition. Perrysville resident Phil Gerwig has spoken out against the formation of the subdistrict on the grounds that there has been virtually no input from property owners within the subdistrict.

“It’s pretty much been a closed-door event only involving Richland County officials until it gets far enough along until it’s too late for public input; once this goes to the Conservancy Court in June, it’s virtually done,” said Gerwig. “Except for the few Richland County officials that are pushing this, few inside and no one outside of the county know about these plans. No politician has mentioned to the public the ultimate outcome will lead to un-voted property tax assessments on the majority of property in Richland County and portions of Ashland, Morrow, Knox, and Crawford.”

Mayor Banks explained under the conservation laws in Ohio, a vote is not required to establish a subdistrict. He added the vote is not entirely without representation; the 18 judges of the Conservancy Court were each voted into their positions by their constituents. Two townships in Richland County, Jefferson and Monroe, rescinded their support of the subdistrict after learning their residents would not have the opportunity to vote on it.

According to Banks, there will be seven more opportunities for public input after the May 16 meeting of the Board of Directors: the June 7 hearing by Conservancy Court on Petition to establish the subdistrict, board hearings regarding the Official Plan in counties affected, the Conservancy Court hearing on objections to the Official Plan, meetings of the Board of Appraisers to determine how benefits will be appraised, Conservancy Court hearings on objections to the appraisal of benefits, the Conservancy Court hearing on the cost/benefit ratio, and the Conservancy Court hearing on confirmation of capital assessment.

“People will have the chance to appeal whatever the charge is going to be, but under the conservation laws in Ohio they do not get to vote on it,” said Banks.

If the Clear Fork subdistrict is approved by the Conservancy Court on June 7, the MWCD, with assistance from community leaders in the Clear Fork area communities, will begin the process to develop the required Official Plan that will detail the causes of flooding in the Clear Fork watershed, the potential projects to reduce the flooding and the benefits that will be developed for property owners and residents through activation of the plan.

If approved, the process to develop and implement any plan should take several years, according to MWCD Executive Director John Hoopingarner.

“The petition is nothing more than a formal request for the conservancy district to look into the possibilities of what could happen over there,” said Hoopingarner. “If the court accepts the petition, it does not mean people are going to be assessed. We are years away before an assessment for the Clear Fork.”

The Clear Fork request comes three years after officials in the city of Shelby were successful in reactivating the former Black Fork subdistrict of the MWCD to address flooding along the Black Fork of the Mohican River, located north of the Clear Fork. In May of 2011, with work beginning in 2012, the Conservancy District Board of Directors, at the request of Shelby officials, re-activated the Blackfork subdistrict for the purpose of preparing an Official Plan, as required by the Ohio Revised Code, to address flooding within the Black Fork watershed.

Shelby Floodplain Manager Joe Gies said the MWCD is only now preparing to hire a consultant to create an Official Plan for the Black Fork subdistrict.

“After the master plan is created, then the community will see the cost,” said Gies. “As of right now all the rain and stream gauges being installed and the formulation of the Official Plan are being paid for by MWCD. If we get through all this and the project doesn’t happen, the city doesn’t owe a dime.

“The best part about this is any efforts that’s ever been done before we have the best data that’s available now, the stuff that’s out there now is better than there ever was,” said Gies.

Hoopingarner explained if the determination is to go forward with projects, there would be an assessment in the Black Fork subdistrict based on a formula approved by the Conservancy Court.

“All of that is based on a study and appraisal of benefits that would be done, determining a cost benefit ratio has to be greater than one to one,” he said. “The benefit has to exceed the costs. If the plans that would produce project costs, and if the solution does not have a greater benefit-t-cost ratio then we’re done, and everything we’ve done is absorbed by the conservancy district as a cost.

“As we go through the planning process there may be several solutions looked at and if the cost-benefit is not an appropriate ratio, they look at different solutions,” Hoopingarner continued. “It is premature to say what this could cost because we’re still in the planning stages. To make even an estimate would be premature and would be inaccurate.”

According to their website, the MWCD collects about $11 million annually in assessments from property owners in the Muskingum River Watershed. Assessments are collected through landowners’ county property tax statements, and the funds legally must be used to pay for projects and programs that protect the operation of the system of 16 dams and reservoirs that were constructed nearly 80 years ago for flood reduction and water conservation benefits in the Muskingum River Watershed. Nearly 95 percent of all property owners subject to the assessment pay the minimum annual amount of $12 per year.

All property parcels in the district are assessed based on their estimated contribution of runoff to the watershed. The assessment is determined from the area of the parcel, the Assessment Use Code (AUC) of the parcel whether commercial, industrial, or residential, and the estimated percent impervious area for that AUC. All residential, agricultural and vacant properties under 640 acres are assessed the same amount, one Equivalent Residential Unit. Commercial, Industrial and other AUC classifications are assessed based upon a modeled percent impervious area, which estimates the contribution of runoff to the watershed. For a complete explanation of how parcels are assessed, please review the MWCD Billing Policies and Assessment Methodologies.

In Phil Gerwig’s opinion, following the MWCD assessment methodology results in an unfair, skewed plan in relationship to other Ohio conservancy districts.

“MWCD continually spews out a ‘$12 per year’ number in self-promoting press releases but avoids talking about the thousands per year commercial, industrial, and government agencies pay,” said Gerwig. “For example, Ohio Power annually pays MWCD nearly $58,000 and Wooster City Schools $8,800. Yet their assessment methodology let some of the biggest abusers of runoff get by with a $12 assessment because they had a powerful lobby.”

On April 18, members of the MWCD Board of Directors approved a plan to provide for a 50 percent reduction in all assessment payments from property owners beginning in 2015 by using funds generated from the conservancy district’s recent oil and gas leases of its property in the Utica Shale development to cover project costs normally paid for by the assessment funds.

Darrin Lautenschleger, Public Affairs Administrator for the MWCD, stressed the creation of both the Black Fork and Clear Fork subdistricts came as a result of the communities reaching out to the conservancy district.

“These are local community and grassroots efforts that begin at the local level to address flooding,” he said. “They reach out to us, we do not recruit them.”

“There is going to be a cost and it will be passed on to the property owners,” said Mayor Banks. “But if we don’t do something now, these floods are happening more often and they’re doing more damage. I am very much a believer that this is the best thing for Bellville and other areas of the subdistrict.”

Even Gerwig admitted he is not necessarily against the idea of the Clear Fork subdistrict, but he believes the issue needs more discussion before proceeding.

“Property owners need to call MWCD and their township, village, and county officials,” said Gerwig. “This plan needs delayed pending heightened public disclosure and comment.”