I don't claim to know the details of Maryland's so-called "rain tax," but I do believe that improving the Chesapeake Bay is a responsibility all of us share ("Senators hear bid to repeal law requiring stormwater fees," March 3).
However, to slam all property owners with a flat fee while the major perpetrators of the problem continue the damage seems to me a lazy and ineffective way to fund the cleanup.
The tax was to be levied based on the size of the property and the area of its impermeable surfaces. Does the law actually say anything about encouraging property owners to install or refit impermeable surfaces with permeable materials? I'm not aware that it does.
Here is an example: The waterman's marina in Rock Hall Harbor. The surface surrounding the marina and another to the north was permeable stone. After the town took over the marina and converted it into a public marina a vast area along the bulkhead was resurfaced with blacktop.
I was appalled. How could a town so heavily dependent on the condition of the bay have gotten away with this in the face of the battle to come to grips with pollution in the bay?
I'm sure other similar examples abound. It might be interesting to how such decision are made.
It's an easy out to spread the cost of remediation over all property owners. After all, what's a modest $20, $30 or $50 per year to property owners? It's much harder to determine where the real causes lie and attack them, yet that is what we expect our government to do.
Clearly, when it comes to sewage, everyone contributes about the same amount, or nearly so. But pollution from stormwater runoff is not nearly as consistent on a per capita basis.
We should end the policies and practices that cause the problem and fund the remediation. In that effort I believe that most citizens are willing to do their part.
Warren Updike, Towson