Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Polls exaggerate the depth of public support for raising the flush tax

Your editorial about the proposed Maryland flush tax failed to mention a number of facts ("The flush tax blues," Jan. 27). For one, the upgrade of the treatment plants was originally budgeted at $550 million by the Glendening administration. It's easy to pass on the financial responsibility for a bill to your successor.

What about the farms? According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, agriculture is responsible for 40.9 percent of the nitrogen and 46.5 percent of the phosphorus released into the Chesapeake Bay. Nothing is being done about this.

Do not let the agricultural community fool you. Drive by a development site versus a farm. There are no sediment control practices on farms, whereas silt fences, sediment basins and other practices are all being used in new development sites.

Your editorial mentioned two recent polls taken by environmental groups stating that people were willing to pay higher taxes to clean up the bay. Read between the lines: What the polls really are saying is that residents are willing for someone else to pay for the cleanup.

The polls show that people on public water and sewer lines support people on private well and septic systems paying more to clean up the bay.

There would not be the number of houses on private well and septic systems if the state, particularly MDE, were willing to allow cities and towns in rural counties to upgrade their public water and sewer systems. But Maryland's lawmakers have made it almost impossible to do that.

Richard B. Williams

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

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • 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).

  • Phosphorus rules, finally
    Phosphorus rules, finally

    As we have chided Gov. Martin O'Malley more than once on this page for dragging his feet on regulations intended to reduce the amount of polluting phosphorus pouring into the Chesapeake Bay from farms, it's only fair to herald his decision to move forward with the rules. That he chose to...

  • 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...

Comments
Loading