Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Clean water at heart of controversial fee

The bills are in the mail, and Marylanders in the urban and near-urban counties are beginning a costly and long-term investment in clean water. Or not ("Balto. Co. companies question new fee," July 11).

A short year ago, the stormwater fee requirement was enacted by the General Assembly and signed into law with an effective date of July 1, 2013. The state regulators anticipated that the timeline would give the local jurisdictions the opportunity to develop fee schedules to meet their individualized needs. That strategy may have backfired.

Initially, the state's fee requirement was either under the radar, or perhaps even viewed as a consensus item. But as the local jurisdictions took up their assigned rate-setting tasks, the fee requirement morphed into another in a series of divisive measures loosely identified by some as unwanted state intrusion into local land use and development policy. The debate has been intensive, but not very enlightening. In particular, the "tax versus fee" discussion has done little to advance the laudable, and presumably shared, goal of clean water.

A year later, the public is confronted with a bewildering patchwork of fees among the jurisdictions that have acted. By way of example, Carroll County is looking to other sources of funding; Frederick County is billing a penny per household; Anne Arundel County revised its proposed fee after a veto by a newly-appointed county executive; and Howard County may be altering its fee even before it is implemented. And the jurisdictions have equally diverse calculation and credit methodologies.

So it should come as no surprise that some folks want the General Assembly to revisit the fee requirement in the next session. Whatever happens, clean water will still be an important public health need and the associated costs will still be astronomical.

Steve LeGendre, Reisterstown

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • 'Rain tax' not optional
    'Rain tax' not optional

    The recent sub-headline on the editorial regarding the "rain tax" was patently false ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 23).

  • 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...

  • Faulty 'rain tax' math
    Faulty 'rain tax' math

    The facts in your recent editorial about the so-called "rain tax" are very selective ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 21).

  • Sun ignores real cost of 'rain tax'
    Sun ignores real cost of 'rain tax'

    As usual, The Sun gets it wrong on the real cost to homeowners of the "rain tax" ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 24). According to the Sun's editorial board, the tax only costs about $39 a year for the typical Baltimore County homeowner. No big deal, right? Well, how about the residual...

  • 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...

  • On 'rain tax,' Hogan has the right idea
    On 'rain tax,' Hogan has the right idea

    The Sun really doesn't get it! Larry Hogan is "repealing" the "rain tax" because it is emblematic of the over-taxing of our state's residents ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 24). You can engage in all the legalistic finger-wagging you care to, but the people of this state are not impressed...

  • 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...

  • Time to flush the 'rain tax'
    Time to flush the 'rain tax'

    The Baltimore Sun editorial ("Bogus rain tax repeal," Nov. 24) neglects to mention that in passing the House Bill 987 Stormwater Management-Watershed and Restoration Program, the "rain tax" in response to the 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandate aimed at reducing the pollution...

Comments
Loading