Save 75% - Only $49.99 for 1 full year! digitalPLUS subscription offer ends 12/1
NewsOpinionEditorial

A small win for polluters [Editorial]

Laws and LegislationEnvironmental PollutionWater PollutionEnvironmental Politics

Two years ago, the General Assembly passed a law requiring Maryland's 10 largest jurisdictions to begin imposing a stormwater fee to cover the costs of reducing pollution that results when rain sweeps dog droppings, pesticides, motor oil and other harmful muck into streams and rivers. Worsened by the rising amount of impervious surfaces (driveways, parking lots, rooftops and so on) in the region, such runoff is a major source of pollution into the Chesapeake Bay, and the fee's adoption was hailed as part of a banner year for the environmental movement.

Last week, the same lawmakers caved, sticking into the state's $39 billion budget an exemption for two counties, Carroll and Frederick, that allows them to use a portion of county property taxes to pay for stormwater control projects instead. The exemption was not vetted in a public hearing, nor even proposed as a piece of legislation, but added as so-called "budget language" out of the blue by a handful of lawmakers during conference committee negotiations.

It could have been worse, of course. The group considered offering that exemption to all 10 jurisdictions. And, in theory at least, it's entirely possible that Carroll and Frederick will meet their obligations to keep their local waterways clean and simply raise local property taxes, as necessary, to cover the cost in good faith. At least they are still required to do so under the two-year-old law.

But surely the only people who believe that rosy scenario are those who lobbied for the exemption — if even they buy it. From Day One, the leaders of these two counties have objected not only to the fee they disparage as the "rain tax" but to spending the money to reduce pollution that runs off the land after a rainstorm. Restoring the Chesapeake Bay is simply not as high a priority the further one travels west along the Interstate 70 corridor.

The end result is that it's now up to the Maryland Department of the Environment, and perhaps the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to make sure these counties are reducing stormwater-related pollution as required by law. That could prove to be a heavy burden, particularly considering how quickly the state has softened its view of the fee. Just last month, MDE ruled that Carroll County could tap its property taxes instead of imposing a distinct fee.

One has to wonder if private property owners in Carroll and Frederick counties were paying attention because they are the first ones who will get hurt by this decision. The point of the must-disparaged rain tax was to collect money from polluters — generally, those with more impervious surface — but now it will be based on property value. That means the owner of a large tract of forested land (probably the least polluting use possible) will be paying while the owner who has virtually paved over a smaller lot (the worst circumstance) may pay a pittance. Indeed, non-profit organizations will likely go scot-free since they generally don't pay property taxes at all.

Critics have pointed out that the stormwater fee means billing churches and private schools, for example, but other jurisdictions have gotten around that by either reducing the fee for such non-profits to a $1 or putting in loopholes to reduce the fee to a pittance by educating the congregation on water pollution or building rainwater gardens or the like. The fee structure may get complicated, but at least it goes after polluters, something a blanket increase in property taxes does not.

Frederick and Carroll residents should also be concerned about what might get shortchanged in those counties should they refuse to raise property taxes. It could be that the counties will end up complying with federal Clean Water Act standards for reducing polluted runoff on the backs of the public schools, law enforcement or other important services. A single-purpose fee would have spared them that scenario.

Make no mistake, it's difficult to see many winners in this decision, even political winners. Democrats will still be attacked by Republicans in this year's state elections for passing a rain tax and refusing the 17 or so bills offered to repeal it. The O'Malley administration now faces a tougher job of enforcing the law, and even the business community in Carroll and Frederick counties ought to be concerned that if those jurisdictions refuse to comply, MDE may eventually have to crack down on other sources of pollution with a moratorium on new construction or worse. That makes the stormwater "compromise" nothing but a mistake for all involved.

To respond to this editorial, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Laws and LegislationEnvironmental PollutionWater PollutionEnvironmental Politics
  • Fix the Conowingo before another Hurricane Agnes hits [Letter]
    Fix the Conowingo before another Hurricane Agnes hits [Letter]

    I read with interest commentator Anirban Basu's article touting what a great asset the Conowingo dam is and how it enhances the lives of all Marylanders ("Support the dam to support Md.," Oct. 13).

  • How about aerators to clean up the bay?
    How about aerators to clean up the bay?

    I just read the article about dredging the Susquehanna River, and I couldn't help thinking back to the Seoul Olympics where they used aerators to clean up their filthy water and they got it clean enough that all of the rowing events were held in very safe water ("Study: Dredging little help...

  • Damming the bay's pollution
    Damming the bay's pollution

    Here's the gist of the recent report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Conowingo Dam: Don't confuse a red herring with a red tide. The notion that all the pollution woes of the Chesapeake Bay could be heaped on one 86-year-old hydroelectric facility on the Lower Susquehanna River was...

  • All Maryland's waterways deserve protection
    All Maryland's waterways deserve protection

    The Clean Water Act has brought progress to the Chesapeake Bay, but in order to continue the bay on the path to success we must protect all the waterways in Maryland, including the Anacostia River ("Close Clean Water Act loophole," Nov. 12).

  • Support Clean Water Act
    Support Clean Water Act

    On the 42nd anniversary of the Clean Water Act, a new report from Environment America, "Waterways Restored," highlights the success the law has meant for the Anacostia River, taking it from a state of horrific pollution to giving some hope that it will be safe for swimming and fishing in little...

  • Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules
    Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules

    In what will be seen as one of soon-to-be ex-Gov. Martin O'Malley's parting shots to the incoming Hogan administration, Mr. O'Malley is pushing through new regulations controlling how farmers fertilize their land ("O'Malley rushes to propose new pollution rules," Nov. 15). Never mind the fact...

  • Dam cleanup too costly
    Dam cleanup too costly

    Regarding the recent commentary about the Conowingo Dam ("Maryland can enforce dam cleanup," Nov. 19), Bob Irvin is correct for the most part. However, let's keep in mind that the Conowingo is a man-made obstruction to sediment, leaves and tree logs that Mother Nature really intended to go to...

  • Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay
    Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay

    While I understand the concern about accumulated nutrient buildup in the sediment upstream of the Conowingo Dam posing a hazard to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, as an engineer I do not see what the operation of the dam's power station has anything to do with it ("Maryland can enforce dam...

Comments
Loading