Baltimore City Council members challenged the city’s refusal to pay for more sewage backups into residents’ homes during a hearing Monday, some arguing the city is hiding behind an “equity” argument as it challenges an order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to do so.
The chiding came during a budget hearing for Baltimore’s Department of Public Works. Council members questioned how the department has been spending the $2 million it budgets annually to assist residents with cleaning up sewage backups. Currently, the city sends cleanup crews to Baltimore residents’ homes — or reimburses cleanup costs — only if a backup was caused by wet weather.
If a backup occurs due to some other kind of blockage during dry weather, such as a clogged or broken pipe, residents must handle the cleanup themselves. Those backups can be caused by residents dumping the wrong materials down their drains, such as grease or wipes, but also can occur for other reasons, like roots growing into a sewer line and causing a breakage.
Richard Luna, deputy director of the department, told the council Monday that $0 was paid in reimbursem*nts in fiscal year 2023 despite residents submitting 27 applications. That same year, $77,000 was spent for the city to clean 11 homes. In fiscal year 2024, 33 residents applied for reimbursem*nts, but only three have received funds, totaling about $14,800. An additional $43,700 was spent to clean four properties.
“There’s a $2 million allocation for that program, and what we’ve seen year-over-year is a very small amount of, number of households approved for this initiative,” Councilman Kristerfer Burnett said in response. “That’s hard to grasp considering we’ve had thousands of backups per year.”
Luna said the definition of a “qualified event” is very narrow. “That’s why you do see the numbers,” he said.
The EPA — which oversees Baltimore’s management of its troubled sewer system under a court-monitored consent decree — has called on the city to expand the number of backups it assists with, a directive the city has challenged. In May 2023, the agency issued an order calling on Baltimore to also cover certain dry-weather events, including backups that occur in sewer mainlines, which are managed by the city. The Maryland Department of the Environment agreed with the federal agency’s determination.
In a July 2023 letter to the agency, Baltimore argued it should not have to expand the program and took issue with the EPA’s reasoning, calling it “inconsistent” with the consent decree.
On Monday, Luna said the city’s chief argument against the expansion is that it’s “not equitable” for Baltimore residents. Because only $2 million is budgeted for the program annually, the funds would be exhausted in the first few months of the fiscal year, he explained. That would be unfair to residents experiencing backups later in the year, Luna said.
“Otherwise you’re expanding the total amount that’s designated for the program, which based off the data, would be very cost prohibitive,” Luna said.
Acting Director of Public WorksKhalil Zaied said Baltimore estimated in 2021 that covering all the events ordered by the EPA would cost $14 million annually. That number has likely expanded to $18 to $20 million since then, he said.
Burnett questioned whether the department has explored other sources of revenue to cover the costs. “Essentially we’re saying we can’t help you because we don’t have enough revenue dedicated to it,” he said.
Councilwoman Odette Ramos said the city should be responsible for providing the assistance.
“I get that it’s going to be expensive,” she said. “I think our residents deserve to have this service. That’s why the EPA is getting involved.”
Ramos also questioned the equity argument made by city officials.
“I think we need to be careful how we’re using equity,” she said. “Equity is really about making sure the areas that continue to get ignored in Baltimore City do not get ignored anymore. And so that means that we would have focused this program in those areas. Not that we’re going to run out of money, and so it’s not equitable.”
“I think we need to be clear about that,” she added. “If we’re going to run out of money, we’re going to run out of money.”
Burnett questioned what city officials are doing to ensure that the full $2 million is spent each year.
“Since I’ve been on this council, we’ve never come close,” he said.
Zaied said negotiations are ongoing with the EPA and MDE, but he said he was optimistic that the two would reach an outcome that would require spending the full $2 million annually.
“We think we’re pretty close,” he said.
Jennifer Kunze, a local organizing director for Clean Water Action, an environmental advocacy group that submitted written testimony to the committee, said she was pleased to see the council’s advocacy on the sewage backup issue. Clean Water Action has called on the city to stop disputing and begin complying with the EPA’s order.
Kunze called the responses from DPW officials “pretty outraging” and said they suggest officials are not taking the council and advocates seriously. She also called into question the $14 million cost estimate cited by Zaied, arguing that estimate included all sewage backups citywide, not just those resulting from a problem on the public side of the sewage line.
“It’s extra concerning if they’re using that information in their negotiations with MDE and EPA,” she said.
Zaied told The Baltimore Sun Tuesday that he provided the full $14 million estimate because the council’s questions “at the time were framed, in respect to covering all building backups.”
During the hearing, council members asked about the EPA’s order and why the city was challenging it. Zaied volunteered the estimate.
Council hearings to discussMayor Brandon Scott’s proposed $4 billion spending plan will continue through Thursday. The council has until June 26 to pass the budget as proposed or make amendments to the spending plan. The next fiscal year begins July 1.
