On Dec. 5, a group of engineers, planners, academics, and consultants gathered to talk about Lexington’s stormwater future. They discussed wetlands, sewer capacity, growth plans, pollution data, and manuals that will quietly shape how the city grows for decades. They also did it without a publi cly posted agenda. That absence wasn’t a clerical oversight. It was a show-stopping transparency failure — one that matters precisely because of how technical, consequential, and inaccessible this conversation already is. A meeting you couldn’t preview — or fully follow The Stormwater Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting opened like many others: a roll call, approval of minutes, and a friendly reference to donuts and caffeine. But nowhere — before or during the meeting — was a public agenda made available online outlining what would be discussed or why. For residents who don’t already live inside stormwater manuals, MS4 permits, or hydrologic modeling software, that matters. Without an agenda, the public had no meaningful way to know: What policy questions were on the table Which presentations could shape future regulations Or when it might be worth tuning in, attending, or weighing in As one longtime civic observer put it afterward, “You basically had to already be in the room to know what the room was about.” Big ideas, quietly aired The substance of the meeting was anything but trivial. University of Kentucky researchers presented detailed findings on nutrient pollution, pesticides, PFAS, and other emerging contaminants in Lexington-area waterways. Urban streams, they noted, consistently show high nutrient loads and pesticide residues that affect aquatic ecosystems. They also made the case for constructed wetlands and floating treatment wetlands as stormwater tools, citing research showing nitrate removal rates approaching 99 percent under certain conditions, along with meaningful reductions in phosphorus, pesticides, and PFAS. This wasn’t academic noodling. It was the scientific groundwork for future local policy. Growth, runoff, and the missing connective tissue Planning staff then walked through Lexington’s Urban Growth Master Plan and recent expansions of the Urban Service Area, acknowledging the political pressure driving growth and the challenge of retrofitting infrastructure planning after the fact. Several committee members raised concerns that should have landed harder than they did: Stormwater planning today is largely site-by-site, not watershed-wide.Connectivity between new developments isn’t being comprehensively modeled.The kind of pre- and post-development hydrology studies used before the 1996 expansion haven’t been replicated. One participant summed it up bluntly: stormwater manuals are fine for individual developments, “but the connectivity between these developments is not being looked at.” That’s not a niche concern. That’s how flooding, pollution, and infrastructure failures sneak up on cities. Data confirms what residents already feel Researchers analyzing Lexington’s MS4 monitoring data confirmed patterns many residents experience firsthand. Town Branch shows chronic nutrient pollution in both wet and dry conditions.Cane Run exhibits persistently high E. coli levels, likely tied to aging sewer infrastructure.Dry-weather pollution — not just storms — is degrading aquatic life across multiple watersheds. The takeaway was sobering: these aren’t episodic problems. They’re background conditions. Manuals that quietly become law The meeting closed with a walkthrough of proposed updates to Lexington’s stormwater manuals — documents most residents will never read, but that effectively function as binding rules for development. The changes touched on which stormwater treatment devices are allowed, who is qualified to certify green infrastructure plantings, and how wetlands and native vegetation are defined. These details matter. They determine whether “green infrastructure” is meaningful — or just decorative landscaping with a permit attached. And yet, absent a public agenda, most Lexingtonians never knew the conversation was happening. The irony of “stakeholder” meetings Stormwater policy sits at the intersection of science, growth, money, and risk. It affects who floods, who pays, and which neighborhoods absorb runoff from new development. Calling this a “stakeholder” meeting while failing to post an agenda sends a quiet but unmistakable signal: participation is assumed, not invited. Lexington deserves better — not because everyone needs to become a hydrologist, but because process is policy. When meetings are hard to find, hard to follow, and impossible to preview, outcomes tilt toward those already fluent in the system. As one attendee sighed while packing up their notes, “This is important stuff. It shouldn’t feel like a members-only briefing.” Until agendas are public, accessible, and timely, Lexington’s stormwater future will keep being shaped — carefully engineered, professionally managed, and largely out of sight. And like runoff after a heavy rain, that always finds its way downstream. The post Big Decisions, No Public Agenda: Stormwater Policy Meets the Dark appeared first on The Lexington Times. ...read more read less