Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell council ADEM flagged city changes to MS4 report; urge transparency and protection of stormwater responsibilities
Summary
Two residents told the Jan. 21 Hoover City Council that ADEM had sent letters criticizing changes Hoover made to its MS4 annual report and urged the council to be transparent about the city’s stormwater responsibilities and funding.
Two residents raised concerns during the public-comment period at the Jan. 21 Hoover City Council meeting, saying the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) had sent letters to city officials rejecting changes to the city’s MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer system) annual report and warning that the city had narrowed its stormwater responsibilities.
Katie Thomas of Scout Creek told the council she had a Nov. 7, 2024 letter from ADEM addressed to the mayor and said the agency’s review of the Jan. 29, 2024 MS4 annual report returned three comments. She said ADEM objected to changes in how the city defined the MS4, to a map that she said omitted receiving waters, and to the inclusion of legal or argumentative material in the report. Thomas cited Section 15.3 of the Hoover Code, which she said establishes the stormwater-management program and explains the fee residents pay for health, safety and welfare purposes.
Matt Winters of Creek Drive followed and said the same letter had been sent to mayors in at least four Alabama cities (Hoover, Mobile, Montgomery and Prattville) that had made similar MS4-report changes in the same year. He said the letters indicate ADEM requested that the changes be removed and asserted the city attorney and the city engineer had taken positions that reduce the city’s stormwater responsibility. Winters urged councilors to ensure transparency and fiscal oversight and questioned whether the city is prioritizing attorney fees over infrastructure maintenance.
Council members did not take formal action on the comments during the meeting. The remarks were presented as citizen concerns and calls for further information; no staff response beyond public acknowledgment was recorded in the transcript.
