Popularly known as the "Rain Tax," and with a measure of justification, the annual stormwater remediation fee of $12.50 per household being charged by Harford County is the focus of a repeal effort.
The fee is flawed. The $12.50 being charged could be increased by 10-fold to $125 a year, and it remains to be seen how the money collected will benefit efforts to clean up or protect the Chesapeake Bay. Protecting the bay, after all, was the point of the fee being levied in the first place.
When he was running for office, Harford County Executive Barry Glassman made repealing the county's stormwater fee something of a campaign mantra, as did plenty of other people running for state and local office in Maryland.
The fee is unpopular on many levels. It is yet another government levy assessed against homeowners, giving it a wide audience of detractors. Though the fee is collected by the counties, its enactment by the counties was required by legislation passed by the Maryland General Assembly, making it unpopular with many of the county officials who were essentially compelled to enact it. State legislators, in turn, were obliged to pass the requirement thanks to action by the U.S. Department of Environment.
Procedurally, there's a lot to dislike about the fee, and there's also the matter of it being a government fee (or tax, as they're largely the same thing in the public's eye, as Robert L. Ehrlich found out).
Its sole saving grace is that money collected was supposed to be used to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay. Such pollutants have long plagued Maryland's defining natural resource, and plenty of people of all political persuasions who also enjoy the Chesapeake are well aware of the problem.
Protecting the bay, at least as a generality, is an issue that knows no party in Maryland, even as environmental initiatives at other levels have detractors in many circles.
In proposing the legislation after it first became a state standard, former county executive David R. Craig pointed out the state's rules with regard to how "rain tax" money could be spent by the counties on stormwater remediation projects was not particularly clear. He has since been appointed to a position in the new governor's cabinet where he might be able to address the issue, but that remains to be seen.
Craig's new boss, Larry Hogan, who takes over the job of governor this week, saw the "rain tax" as a key campaign issue, just as Glassman did, and a review of the state legislation can be expected in the coming weeks and months. Again, it remains to be seen what will come of such a review, but, given the state's role in the matter, Harford County's best course of action may well be to wait it out.
There is, after all, a constituency for government programs geared toward saving the bay, as evidenced by people who spoke at a hearing last week on the proposed "rain tax" repeal. Perhaps surprisingly, the sentiment among those speaking was to leave the rain tax in place.
Bill Temmink, of Joppatowne, was quoted last week in this newspaper pointing out that the effects of unmitigated stormwater runoff are easy to see in Harford County's portions of the bay that have become clogged with silt and mud. He noted that the local Chesapeake tidal tributaries, including the Gunpowder and Bush River, "are not swimmable and not usable in full."
There are plenty of reasons not to like the stormwater fee, starting with it is yet another government fee, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Harford County Council should repeal its "rain tax" law.
As a practical matter, the federal and state requirements in place could well mean that a repeal ends up costing the county's taxpayers more than the tax itself. As County Council President Dick Slutzky points out, the state has been less than aggressive in enforcing its legislative mandate, but that could change.
As a philosophical matter, the point made by Mr. Temmink and others that efforts need to be made to clean up and protect the bay is important. Nearly 50 years after the slogan "Save the Bay" was coined, the work still needs to be done, and it will involve spending money and imposing regulations. While it isn't a foregone conclusion that the money will have to come from a "rain tax," it will have to come from somewhere.
The county council would be better off focusing on something other than a largely symbolic "rain tax" repeal. Either the problem will be mollified at the state or federal levels, or it won't, but the county government will have very little say in the matter, no matter how it plays out.