Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Editorial

Neuman's reckless stormwater veto

Anne Arundel County's proposed stormwater fee provided newly appointed County Executive Laura Neuman with her first leadership test, and she failed. Her veto puts the county at risk of sanctions if it does not enact a fee structure by July 1, yet she appears to have no plan for complying with state and federal requirements for reducing the polluted stormwater that is washing into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The County Council should override her reckless decision without delay.

Ms. Neuman has offered two explanations for her veto. The first is her notion that the residents of the county were insufficiently informed of what the proposed fee is and what it's for — a consequence, she theorizes, of the distraction to the government and the public caused by the protracted scandal involving her predecessor, John Leopold. It must be tempting for Ms. Neuman to blame everything she can on the disgraced Mr. Leopold, but she doesn't get off so easily this time.

Anne Arundel County's stormwater fee proposal was developed through a six-month process that included input from the Chamber of Commerce, homebuilders, environmentalists and others. Since it was introduced in the County Council, it has been the subject of public hearings, which have resulted in dozens of amendments. As the other counties required to enact stormwater fees by the General Assembly's 2012 law have done so, the matter has attracted nationwide attention. Moreover, Anne Arundel officials have been talking about enacting a stormwater fee for at least five years. This should hardly be a surprise, and even if it was, the fact remains that the county is required to put a fee structure in place by July 1.

Ms. Neuman's second rationale for her veto is a belief that the fee structure approved by the council is too much, too soon and that Arundel residents are overwhelmed by the panoply of recent tax and fee increases enacted by the state government. No doubt the residents of famously tax-averse Anne Arundel County are unhappy, particularly since the stormwater fees the council approved would have been larger than those levied in some other jurisdictions.

If Ms. Neuman believes the fees are too high, she is welcome to propose an alternative, but she hasn't and doesn't intend to, saying instead that she's curious to see what the council comes up with next. But the council may not have much different to offer here since the amount of the fee was a function of the needs identified by what is now Ms. Neuman's public works department and the financing mechanism for addressing them was determined in consultation with what is now her finance department. The councilmen could propose something lower or phase the fee in, but the county would still risk failing to meet its requirements under the Clean Water Act.

That's the big picture here. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set tough new water quality targets for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and Anne Arundel County has more bay shoreline and tributaries than any other jurisdiction. It has a lot to do to mitigate the effects of polluted stormwater that flows off of roofs, driveways and parking lots and into streams and rivers that feed the bay. If the county fails to meet the July 1 deadline, the state could theoretically take it to court and secure penalties that run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

But the real risk comes if the county falls out of compliance with the Clean Water Act. Anne Arundel (along with the other counties required to enact stormwater fees) faces difficult goals for how much it must reduce its contribution of pollution into the Chesapeake Bay by 2025, and if meeting them seems expensive now, it will only get more so the longer the county waits.

Ms. Neuman is free to dislike that fact. She can kick and scream and curse the EPA. But the bottom line is that when rainwater is channeled into storm sewers rather than soaking into the ground, it takes all sorts of pollution with it. One way or another, the county is going to be required to undertake a variety of projects to mitigate that problem. It can pay for them through a dedicated fee, or it can find the money by shortchanging police, schools, the fire department and all the other things the county pays for. But this exercise is not optional.

Perhaps Ms. Neuman is playing populist here with an eye on the 2014 election, but someone needs to be the grown up in the room. The bill approved by the council was based on extensive study and consultation with experts and affected groups, and it reflected significant public input through the legislative process. There is no way for the council to come up with a well-thought-out alternative by July 1. Its best option is to override Ms. Neuman's veto and make any adjustments that are necessary down the road.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Churches should not have to pay stormwater fees [Letter]
      Churches should not have to pay stormwater fees [Letter]

      In response to your paper's recent article about churches paying stormwater fees, I would point out that churches provide heavily discounted space for community groups and that many house affordable kindergarten and nursery school programs and provide food and shelter for at-risk populations...

    • Rain tax: Noble goal, unfair execution
      Rain tax: Noble goal, unfair execution

      Kim Coble of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation laments that Maryland county officials are considering rolling back their stormwater remediation fees. ("'Rain tax¿ is rolling back," Jan. 26.) In 2012 the Maryland General Assembly passed HB 987 requiring nine Maryland counties and Baltimore...

    • Stop the smoke and mirrors of the 'rain tax' debate
      Stop the smoke and mirrors of the 'rain tax' debate

      The article by Pamela Wood on "rolling back the rain tax" ("Counties reconsider stormwater fees," Jan. 25) only adds to my confusion about how the whole state of Maryland continues to be in an uproar over the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act mandating reductions in nitrogen,...

    • Mr. Hogan's run-off trap
      Mr. Hogan's run-off trap

      Here's something all Marylanders can agree on: It sure would be stupid to tax the rain. Fortunately, the state doesn't do it and never has, despite what one may hear from Gov. Larry Hogan whose recent "truth to power" State of the State address would have been a lot more effective if he'd stuck...

    • Hating taxes, loving the Chesapeake Bay
      Hating taxes, loving the Chesapeake Bay

      Marylander's agree on two things: We love the Chesapeake Bay and we hate taxes.

    • Protecting the bay is a shared responsibility
      Protecting the bay is a shared responsibility

      I don't claim to know the details of Maryland's so-called "rain tax," but I do believe that improving the Chesapeake Bay is a responsibility all of us share ("Senators hear bid to repeal law requiring stormwater fees," March 3).

    • Hogan's 'rain tax' straw man
      Hogan's 'rain tax' straw man

      Webster's defines a "straw man" as "an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated." We can find no better example than Gov. Larry Hogan's crusade against what he calls Maryland's "rain tax," which led this week to his introduction of legislation to repeal a law that he...

    • The rub of the 'rain tax'
      The rub of the 'rain tax'

      Like many other politically interested individuals, I've been wondering for quite a while if the "rain tax" really is the "Obamacare" of Maryland environmental politics. Does the savvy politico who coined the term deserve the credit/blame for single-handedly turning a fee that only 10...