The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a decision favoring the City of Streetsboro in a case involving the mandatory installation of smart water meters. The ruling affects local residents who challenged the city's authority to replace their analog meters with new technology, citing concerns over privacy and health.
The case, Rohan v. Streetsboro (2025-P-0089), stems from a dispute between Streetsboro and residents Regina Rohan and Laura Lewis, who opposed the installation of electronic water meters. The court's decision, issued on August 24, 2026, is significant as it clarifies the limits of residents' rights regarding municipal actions and the implementation of new technologies.
Streetsboro, a municipal corporation, operates its own water distribution utility and purchases water from Portage County Water Resources. The city faced challenges with inaccurate analog meters and decided to replace them with Kamstrup Flow IQ 2200 electronic meters, which include features for detecting leaks. The city informed residents that installation costs would be covered by the city and required appointments for the meter replacement.
Rohan and the Lewises expressed concerns about potential health risks associated with the new meters and the collection of data from their homes without consent. They argued that the installation violated their constitutional rights, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and the right to due process. After filing a complaint in June 2024 and obtaining a temporary restraining order against the city, the case proceeded to summary judgment.
The trial court ruled in favor of Streetsboro, stating that the residents could not maintain a declaratory judgment action based on the constitutional provisions they cited. The court found that these provisions were not self-executing and lacked the necessary legal framework to support the residents' claims. Streetsboro's actions were deemed lawful under its home-rule authority, which allows municipalities to regulate utilities and ensure efficient services.
Judge Robert J. Patton, writing for the court, noted that the trial court correctly determined that Streetsboro's installation of electronic meters did not constitute an unreasonable search or invasion of privacy. The court referenced previous rulings that established the reasonableness of similar municipal actions. The opinion stated, "the installation and operation of electronic water meters does not constitute an unreasonable search or invasion of privacy."
The court's ruling has implications for residents in Streetsboro and potentially other municipalities considering similar upgrades to their water systems. It reinforces the authority of local governments to implement technological improvements to public utilities, even when faced with opposition from residents concerned about privacy and health issues.
Going forward, the ruling may set a precedent for how municipalities can navigate the balance between technological advancements and residents' rights. It clarifies that constitutional provisions related to privacy and due process may not provide grounds for legal action against municipal regulations unless there is explicit statutory authorization.
The residents' legal options appear limited following this ruling. They may consider appealing the decision, but the court's affirmation of the trial court's summary judgment suggests that the legal landscape is challenging for those opposing similar municipal actions. Details about any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.