Hamilton’s Stormwater Fee Debate: Fair Funding or Over-Precision?
Hamilton has delayed its proposed stormwater fee until 2027, but the real debate isn't about timing — it’s about how precisely we assign costs for climate resilience, and whether that precision helps or hurts everyday people.
Stormwater is no longer just a nuisance; it’s a growing liability. As climate change brings heavier rains and aging infrastructure struggles to cope, cities like Hamilton are under pressure to invest in drainage, pipes, and flood protection. The idea behind the new stormwater fee is simple: charge properties based on how much runoff they generate — especially from roofs, driveways, and parking lots.
That’s arguably fairer than Hamilton’s current system, which funds stormwater through water bills and taxes, often disconnected from actual runoff impact. A high water user in a small home may pay more than a big box store with acres of pavement. The proposed model would change that, with most homes paying around $200 annually, and larger sites paying proportionally more — as is already the case in cities like Mississauga, Kitchener, and Ottawa.
And just when that seems like the sensible, fair solution, there’s this: advances in technology and data have made it possible to precisely measure and charge for runoff. But how far should that precision go? At what point does fairness by formula tip into burden? For families, farmers, small businesses, and schools — already navigating tight margins — does a highly calculated fee erode disposable income in the name of equity?
This is the tension at the heart of Hamilton’s debate. Critics, especially in rural areas, argue they see little benefit from urban storm sewers, yet could face hefty bills. Some large greenhouse operators estimated six-figure fees. Even with credits for green space and mitigation, they say the precision risks pushing agriculture and small players out. Others wonder if a flatter, less surgical model might be fair enough — and easier to bear.
Supporters counter that without a dedicated, structured fee, Hamilton’s stormwater infrastructure will remain underfunded. Flood risks will grow. And the inequities of the current system — where water usage, not runoff, determines cost — will persist.
As the city retools the plan, it must balance accuracy with affordability. The question isn’t just who pays, but how precisely we calculate that — and whether a bit less precision might actually serve people, and the city, better.
I never looked at it that way but your on to something. People can only take so much of the squeeze. Tom
ReplyDelete