This story was updated to include a Wedneday statement from Akron Mayor Shammas Malik.
The City of Akron lost a costly ruling in federal court that it says will mean an immediate 23% increase in water and sewer bills.
Unless the city is successful in its appeal, the March 1 decision will force the completion of the final phase of the Akron sewer project, known as Akron Waterways Renewed!, at a cost of $209 million for a wastewater treatment facility it has fought against having to build.
U.S. District Court Judge John Adams sided with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 1, ruling the City of Akron has no legal basis to amend its federal consent decree. Now, the city must build the enhanced high-rate treatment facility (EHRT), which would be added on to Akron’s wastewater treatment facility, to treat wastewater overflows into the Cuyahoga River, he said.
The city was able to amend the consent decree three times to save money, including by downsizing a proposed tunnel last year, a move it said would save $50 million.
Akron’s proposed fourth amendment to the decree sought “permission to fundamentally alter its 2014 Consent Decree and obtain approval to dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into the [Cuyahoga Valley National Park],” Adams wrote in his denial of the city’s motion. “… Fortunately for the environment, the Decree cannot be revisited and modified simply because Akron would like to renegotiate the obligations that it freely assumed in 2011 when the Decree was entered.”
Last week, Adams ruled against Akron’s motion to delay constructing the facility while the city appeals his March 1 ruling. The judge took another opportunity to rebuke the city’s argument as he denied its request. “In denying the motion, the Court found no merit in any of Akron’s contentions that it believed supported modification.”
Akron is also appealing Adams’ denial of its motion to delay construction, and hasn’t begun building the treatment facility.
Signal Akron requested an interview with Akron Director of Public Service Chris Ludle, but Mayor Shammas Malik’s spokesperson, Stephanie Marsh, said there “isn’t much update we can provide,” while the court order is contested.
Horrigan: Facility would only be used ‘at most three times per year’
In a press release last summer, when city attorneys filed to amend the consent decree, then-Mayor Dan Horrigan said the EPA’s requirement that the city build the facility, which was agreed upon year earlier in the consent decree, was “complete agency overreach, and, quite frankly, I know this community is tired of it.”
“The U.S. EPA and the Department of Justice would like our residents and ratepayers to pay over $200 million to build a facility that would only be used at most three times per year,” when there are extreme rain events, Horrigan continued.
“The benefit of this building is almost non-existent. Meanwhile, after we complete the Northside Interceptor Tunnel, Akron will already be capturing and treating 99% of all wet weather flows. That means over 2.3 billion gallons of water which previously went unchecked back into our waterways will now be treated. This is a massive environmental feat and one we all should be incredibly proud of. But it has come with a cost,” he said.
Improvements after the consent decree already cost the city $1 billion, Horrigan said, and the $200 million to build the EHRT facility couldn’t be justified.
In a January meeting with reporters to review his new administration’s capital budget, Malik said he hoped to not have to construct the $200 million treatment facility.
“We would very much prefer not to do that because we think that investment for the inches on the whole football field that you gain in terms of benefit is not worth it,” Malik said.
In court filings, city attorneys said if Akron has to build the facility, “it will immediately move forward with a 23% rate increase [for sewer bills] before it can afford to begin paying the design and construction costs of the EHRT.”
The court sided with the EPA because the amendment allows for some overflow of untreated river sewage and the consent decree Akron agreed to requires that not to happen.
Akron had proposed other measures in lieu of building the facility, including offering financial support for water treatment projects in Lakemore, Peninsula and Springfield Lake.
Adams said that wasn’t good enough.
“Adopting any of the measures proposed by Akron that would allow for untreated overflow would fundamentally alter the bargain reached by the parties,” Adams wrote. “In essence, thirteen years after the Decree was entered by this Court, Akron wants to return to the bargaining table and obtain a Decree that requires less than the original. The Court cannot approve of such an approach.”
Malik’s spokesperson said the city hopes in July to announce its decision about the appeals.
Editor’s note: The following statement was received Wednesday from Akron May Shammas Malik.
In March, the U.S. District Court ruled against Akron’s proposed 4th amendment to the combined sewer overflow (CSO) consent decree. We are currently pursuing an appeal through the United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yesterday, the city filed a motion before the 6th Circuit requesting a stay to the District Court ruling while the appeal process plays out. I have previously committed not to raise sewer rates in 2024 and that commitment continues. As our administration works to determine future costs for maintaining our sewer system, we will provide updates to the community about the possibility of rate changes in future years.
The headline was also updated to clarify the nature of the ruling against the city, which denied an amendment to the consent decree with the U.S. EPA.