Manheim Township is firing back against a lawsuit aiming to hold it responsible for problems with the sewer system in neighboring Lancaster city.
- The lawsuit, filed in January by Lancaster city in Lancaster County court, argues that Manheim officials have not done enough to control stormwater from entering the city sewer system.
- The system serves homes and businesses on about 300 acres of the suburban township, which is home to more than 44,000 people overall.
- The city’s proposed solutions include restrictions on future development in Manheim.
- In a rebuttal filed last week, the township claims the city is trying to “pass off” its responsibilities to fix the problem and says the lawsuit should be dismissed.
- A city spokesperson and an attorney for the township declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
What’s the problem: The city’s antiquated sewer system, which is what is known as a combined system.
- That means it collects both sewage and stormwater.
- The mix usually poses little challenge. But during heavy rains, stormwater can overwhelm the system, leading to discharges into the Conestoga River.
- The discharges may contain some untreated sewage.
- Under a 2017 consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Lancaster is on the hook for reducing discharges.
- In its lawsuit, Lancaster says the consent decree requires it to use its “best efforts” to curb stormwater flow from Manheim and that legal action is necessary to meet its obligations under the agreement.
- Moreover, the city argues that Manheim has violated the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution by approving new developments that aggravate stormwater runoff.
- Manheim disagrees.
On what grounds: The township’s chief counter is that the city alone is responsible for adhering to the consent decree.
- Manheim argues that the city cannot use the Environmental Rights Amendment, or ERA, to compel action by another jurisdiction, citing previous cases involving the clause.
- In a 2016 ruling, for example, Commonwealth Court dismissed an effort by state residents to force the Wolf administration to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
- Other points raised by the township include the city’s alleged failure to object to developments when it had the chance during the land-development process and its inability to cite specific developments causing a problem.
- “The city’s complaint is a poorly disguised attempt to force the township to pay for the improvements to the city’s combined sewer system that the city states on its webpage it is ‘required’ to make according to its 2017 consent decree” with the EPA and DEP, Manheim wrote in a legal filing.
The background: Stormwater issues have been contentious.
- The state Supreme Court is hearing a case involving efforts by West Chester borough to impose stormwater fees on West Chester University.
- The university has argued that as a nonprofit it does not have to fork over the fee, which pays for infrastructure improvements.
- Lancaster city also has a stormwater fee, as well as a green infrastructure plan to help reduce storm runoff.
