Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Tax pollution, not rain

FertilizerChemical Industry

I feel the stormwater fee has failed to achieve its goal which is to reduce the pollution that makes it into the Chesapeake Bay ("Churches seek break on city stormwater fee," June 12). The current implementation of the stormwater fee unfairly fines those of us that are making investments in reducing pollution at the benefit of those that are not. For example, two people have identically sized lots. Person A has a lawn service dump fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides once a week on his lawn. Person B planted drought tolerant ground cover that does not require any chemicals at all. Both Person A and Person B pay the same stormwater fee regardless. There is no incentive for Person A to reduce his bad habits and Person B feels jaded for all his efforts to do the right thing. Businesses are not encouraged to clean up their acts either. Two identically-sized business properties would pay the same stormwater fee. Yet one could have a parking lot full of manure and coal while the other could contain brand new electric vehicles.

The end goal is to reduce the pollutants in the bay. The best method to accomplish this is by taxing the pollutants at the source. Just as cigarettes, liquor and other products have an additional tax upon them, pollutants should have a tax as well. As people have suggested a carbon tax on all things that produce carbon dioxide, I am proposing a pollution tax that would be based on the amounts of pollution in items that typically end up in the bay. This might include fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and automotive fluids like antifreeze and oils. The more toxic and concentrated the pollutant, the higher the tax.

How effective would the cigarette tax have been in reducing smoking if instead of taxing the cigarettes we equally taxed everyone for the wind that blew the smoke into other people's lungs? The stormwater is not to blame, it is the pollution that needs to be addressed.

Frank Smith, Glen Burnie

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
FertilizerChemical Industry
  • 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...

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • 'Rain tax' sobriquet is misleading
    'Rain tax' sobriquet is misleading

    I find the continued use of the term "rain tax" to be misleading at best ("After Hogan victory, local governments look to cut taxes and fees," Nov. 15).

  • The bogus 'rain tax' repeal
    The bogus 'rain tax' repeal

    Despite facing a bigger-than-expected budget shortfall, and although he promised a policy blackout until he takes office, Governor-elect Larry Hogan last week publicly reiterated his support for repealing Maryland's "rain tax" while meeting with fellow Republican governors in Florida. He told...

  • Churches get cozy with government [Letter]
    Churches get cozy with government [Letter]

    Concerning the article, "Faith groups wrestling with stormwater fee" (Feb. 18), religious organizations should recognize that the camel's head is under the tent.

  • Md. must enforce stormwater controls [Letter]
    Md. must enforce stormwater controls [Letter]

    In a letter to the editor ("Md. leads the region in reducing stormwater runoff," Jan. 10), Maryland Department of the Environment Secretary Robert Summers took issue with concerns I expressed earlier in The Sun ("Bay advocates say state lax in monitoring county stormwater controls," Jan. 3). At...

  • Why bother having a legislative session? [Letter]
    Why bother having a legislative session? [Letter]

    I'm so grateful that the voters in Maryland don't have to worry about contacting our legislators in Annapolis to present our views on the rain tax. Thank you, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller and House Speaker Michael E. Busch for making the decision for us that there will be no repeal...

Comments
Loading