Menu

by Seth Teter

A $270 million plan to fund improvement projects in the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) has landowners in 18 counties wondering what price they'll have to pay.

During its annual meeting in June, the Conservancy Court unanimously approved the 20-year plan aimed at protecting residents and property from flooding and improving water quality in the district.

The court, comprised of one judge from each county, will decide in June 2006 if landowners in the district will pay an annual assessment to fund the plan.

But how properties will be assessed and what the money will be used for is still not clear.

"That's what's been so difficult about this," said Larry Gearhardt, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF) director of local affairs, noting that there has been virtually no public input on the process.

When 40 Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF) members showed up at the public meeting to share their concerns, they were told only one would be allowed to speak and that person would have just three minutes, according to Michelle Specht, organization director for Carroll, Harrison, Jefferson and Tuscarawas counties.

She said MWCD officials didn't issue notice of the proposal until the day before the vote and on the night of the meeting she was told that speakers had to register several days in advance.

"We need more input, instead of everybody rubber stamping everything," Specht said.

Gearhardt said the MWCD board initially said the plan would be funded by an annual assessment of $12 per land parcel in district. However, he believes that a flat fee violates Ohio law.

"The Ohio Revised Code says that the assessment is to be based on the benefits accrued for the project," he said. "That in my mind means that it is variable for each landowner."

Landowners who own 500 acres will probably see more benefits than those who own one acre, he said.

He added that inspecting each parcel in the 18-county district to determine the assessment is a "huge process."

"They may not do a visual inspection," he said. "For example, they may divide the district up into zones and then go by acres in each zone."

Specht questions the administrative costs of the plan and wants to see more details of what the money will be used for.

"Nobody is opposed to giving (MWCD) the money to do what they need to do, but they need to be accountable for what they take," she said.

She said the assessment amounts to taxation without representation and could affect landowner rights.

"Once they get their foot in the door with an assessment, does this mean that they can control decisions property owners make with that land," she said. "Property owners are going to have to answer to them, and that's not right."

Gearhardt encouraged OFBF members in the district to prepare to get involved in the public process before the court meets again. He said the MWCD will hold public hearings in each county as it develops the details of the plan.

"We want to base our arguments on facts and figures and not emotion," he said. "Until (MWCD) makes some final decisions, we really don't have anything to shoot at."