I have always acted in an environmentally sound way in how I treat rainwater. I have never owned a house where rain water left my property. Why should I be taxed to subsidize polluters ("Miller storm-water fee bill advances in Senate," March 19)?
If a developer builds a shopping center with the typically massive asphalt parking lot, why should I be taxed to pay for his development's polluted runoff?
And before you say it, yes, I drive on the public roads — but I pay a tax to maintain those roads and their resulting runoff.
Of course, representatives at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation argue that "there is never enough money in the road fund to adequately address stormwater."
My reply: "That's because the road fund is constantly being robbed for social programs."
Maybe that's the whole point of the "rain tax.". If government mandates that developers and polluters treat their own waste and "nip it in the bud," as old Barney Fife used to say, money wouldn't get to government where they could siphon it off for other pet projects, like buying votes.
Environmentalists used to condemn what they called "pay to pollute," where businesses willingly paid a fine because it was cheaper than treating their own waste stream.
Government got the benefit of the fine, which usually went for things other than pollution. It seldom helped the crabber or fisherman downstream.
The so-called "rain tax" isn't much different than the "flush tax." My waste has always been treated responsibly, on site, with my septic system. Why should I have to subsidize people on public sewer systems? Just to keep their water bill down?
The argument is often made that some septic systems on the bay are in need of repair and that seepage from them needs to be remediated. OK, but it seems to me that if you can afford waterfront property you can probably also afford to fix your own septic system without robbing me.
Let those people pay their own way and I'll pay mine. Enough of this socialist nonsense.
Paul Christian