Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

The worst thing about the 'rain tax': It won't do enough

Don't mess with Mother Nature, they say; but we do, perhaps must — hard-wired like steroidal beavers to be forever engineering our environment.

Some of our most emphatic "messing" is to pave and roof over the soft, vibrant skin of green earth. This obviously deadens it for the rest of life. Less obviously, by disrupting the natural flow of rain, it disrupts all manner of complex and vital communication between watersheds and waters.

We lump all this under "stormwater pollution," oversimplifying the problem, ensuring that we take too narrow an approach to solutions.

To be sure, stormwater even in the narrow sense is the fastest-growing source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. It has made news as federal requirements for restoring the bay force local jurisdictions to come up with big bucks to slow down, disperse and filter the polluted rainwater that rages off the millions of hardened acres where it used to soak in.

In Maryland, the legislature recently required large counties and Baltimore City to charge taxpayers a stormwater fee. Some politicians and conservative pundits have denounced this as a "rain tax."

They might as well call quarterly sewer bills "a bowel movement tax" or paint the food sales tax as government intrusion in "swallowing." So long as water runs downhill and connects "your" property to "our" bay, word games won't make the stormwater problem go away.

Unfortunately, neither will the latest round of expensive, new stormwater controls which we're all going to be paying for soon. They'll be, on balance, a real improvement, just as the stormwater holding ponds that dot the watershed were an improvement a couple of decades ago.

The new controls will require developers to mimic nature more, restricting how much land they harden, increasing places where the rain can soak into the soil and promoting natural buffers along streams.

All are good things to do — and they allow us to keep growing, developing in Maryland alone another half a million or so acres in the next couple of decades, with the illusion that we're restoring the bay.

Never mind the exceptions and exemptions and grandfathering and delayed timetables that will inevitably occur. Never mind that hugely understaffed stormwater inspection programs will have to deal with a huge increase in inspections.

Never mind that the focus remains relatively narrow, targeting nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, the three main bay pollutants, rather than overall aquatic health of waterways.

This last is most concerning. The science makes it clearer every year that past a fairly low level of development, water quality in a given watershed begins to decline, regardless of stormwater control programs.

Native brook trout feel the impacts when as little as one half of 1 percent of the watershed around their streams is paved. That's the equivalent of a two-lane highway through an otherwise forested square mile of land.

In general, fish health and diversity are OK up to about 5 percent developed, or impervious; but by 10 percent most waterways have reached a tipping point, and by 15 percent they are clearly degraded.

And it's not clear you can go home again once a watershed passes from rural to suburban/urban. A recent Maryland study of urban streams found that while expensive restoration projects could make them look prettier, they weren't any healthier than unrestored streams.

It's not just little streams. Similar links between development and the aquatic health of the Chesapeake itself emerge in studies by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.

Why development inevitably tips waterways over the edge is only partly understood. In addition to measurable increases in polluted runoff, paving disrupts how rain moves naturally: seeping in, filtering through soils and feeding streams in drought; It may also short-circuit rainfall's conveyance of the organic matter from forested lands that nourishes the larvae of spawning fish.

Factor in other insults — from road salt to endocrine disrupters and other poisons that aren't taken out in sewage treatment — and one has what a scientist once called "urban stream syndrome."

"There's always another round of new solutions that will let us keep developing with less impact, but the burden of proof is always on the stream," said Scott Stranko, director of the Maryland Biological Stream Survey.

So what's the answer?

•Focus on aquatic health, not just a few pollutants of concern to a few parameters of bay health, important though these are.

•Consider triage — save resources to restore only streams that have a chance.

•Analyze whether growth as usual is cost-effective anymore if we really count all the costs, both to taxpayers and to the rest of nature. Might there be a limit on how many people you can put in a place and sustain a healthy and diverse natural environment?

If that sounds radical, consider the assumptions of the latest "rain tax": Developing another half-million acres in Maryland will lead to restored waters.

Tom Horton covered the Chesapeake Bay for 33 years for The Sun, and is author of six books about the bay. This article is distributed by Bay Journal News Service.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • 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 claims...

  • Rain tax deserves a real repeal

    Rain tax deserves a real repeal

    Boy, talk about a slanted, biased editorial ("Carroll Co. talks sense on stormwater," April 2). An issue that, if done truthfully, could have been summed up in a paragraph was turned into a diatribe about how misguided the voters are.

  • Rain tax still isn't justified

    Rain tax still isn't justified

    Regarding The Sun's editorial on the stormwater management fee ("Carroll talks sense on stormwater," April 3), let's first explain Gov. Larry Hogan's position in my opinion. He proposed to get rid of the "rain tax," the legislature voted that down and proposed their own biased solution as offered...

  • Carroll Co. talks sense on stormwater

    Carroll Co. talks sense on stormwater

    If there were any doubt that the drive to repeal Maryland's stormwater management fee, AKA "rain tax," is all politics and no substance, it was erased Wednesday when Carroll County, the jurisdiction that has fought hardest against the levy, balked at a bill to repeal it. That's right. Carroll's...

  • Why should I be taxed to subsidize polluters?

    Why should I be taxed to subsidize polluters?

    I have always acted in an environmentally sound way in how I treat rainwater. I have never owned a house where rain water left my property. Why should I be taxed to subsidize polluters ("Miller storm-water fee bill advances in Senate," March 19)?

  • 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 exemption not worth the effort

    Rain tax exemption not worth the effort

    When we built our house in Anne Arundel County in 2002, we had to install a $10,000 wastewater management system because we were building within 1,000 feet of a body of water. We found this to be unreasonable but we had no appeal. We were certain that we qualified for an exemption now from the...

  • In rush to cut taxes and fees, lawmakers are sacrificing long-term environmental sustainability

    In rush to cut taxes and fees, lawmakers are sacrificing long-term environmental sustainability

    I was disheartened to read that both Republican and Democratic legislators are already making plans to repeal the stormwater management fees designed to pay for projects that mitigate the only source of Chesapeake Bay pollution that is still on the rise ("After Hogan victory, local governments...

Comments
Loading

54°