After Tuesday's Anne Arundel County Council meeting, the future appears uncertain for a proposed $35 stormwater fee. But the bill's sponsor promised it wasn't the end of the proposal.
Councilman Chris Trumbauer (D-Annapolis) pulled his bill seeking the stormwater fee on Tuesday. The bill would have funded between $10-15 million annually towards stormwater improvements across the county to address enhanced guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency, commonly referred to as the Chesapeake Bay's pollution diet.
Trumbauer said there wasn't a clear show of support among the other councilmen, so he chose to withdraw it for now, with plans to reintroduce it in a few months.
"This problem isn't going to go away. This is not a defeat of this issue. This is just making sure that we take the time to get it right," Trumbauer said.
The councilman said he would be using the next few months to work alongside the county's Department of Public Works and other agencies to further improve the bill before reintroducing it at a later date.
Another factor in the bill's delay was a desire to hear what kinds of stormwater measures the state will fund, Trumbauer said. Those discussions have been ongoing with state legislators, and Trumbauer said he expects to know more in a few months.
"Part of the reluctance of my colleagues to support this is the uncertainty of what's going to happen at the state level," Trumbauer said. "I get that. But I think there's a strong possibility that the need for this issue will actually emerge stronger after the general assembly makes its decision."
The bill's co-sponsor, Councilman Dick Ladd (R-Broadneck), reiterated that this bill would help begin paying for the estimated $950 million in improvements needed to meet the enhanced demands on water quality in the Chesapeake Bay around Anne Arundel County.
"The problem is both here and now. It's a matter of safety to people on the ground in addition to people on the water," Ladd said. "If we can't get started on a project of this scope, we at least want to make sure that we're not continuing to add or increase the backlog of repair and maintenance work on existing infrastructure."
Following Ladd's comments, Trumbauer withdrew the bill, hearing no complaints from his fellow councilmen.
When the bill was first introduced in December, it was criticized by the county executive's representatives, received only mixed reactions from other council members,
Trumbauer said that their support will help make this bill better in the end.
You're correct. The bay plates raise about $5 million for the whole state annually for community scale projects. It's a great program, but this bill would have raised $10-15 million for large scale projects in Anne Arundel County alone.
If they report progress then.....the money stops.
Huge victories have been made reducing industrial/chemical and phosphorous pollution into the Bay. Nitrogen is still a big problem. In my opionion, the problem is that lobbysist have done such a good job keeping legislators in all the Bay watershed states from passing laws that have real and immediate penalties when pollution reduction goals are not met. They're just dragging out the inevitable (at great additional cost). Rockfish and crabs are making good comebacks (and are delicious when paired together)! If you won't eat fish from the Bay after it's been "cleaned," then please don't research cattle or hog production or tilapia for that matter.
I'm also disappointed that despite the exectutives branch's promise that there will be no new taxes he appears to be allowing the Department of Public Works to work hand in hand with Trumbauer to craft a new tax increase.
If they report progress then.....the money stops.
Try googling ""Chesapeake Bay" progress" and read all about it. Here are some... "6 percent improvement in health since 2008," water quality "2 percent increase from 2008," fish & shellfish "9 percent increase from 2008" http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bayhealth.aspx?menuitem=15048 And the "Chesapeake Bay Watershed 2009-2011 Milestones Interim Progress Assessment/Fact Sheet - June 2011" details all kinds of progress in great detail... 296% of goal for septic improvements, 120% of goal for wastewater Nitrogen removal and 216% of goal for Phosphorous removal. Just saying they don't report progress doesn't make it true. PS Regarding cattle & hogs, I was referring to steroids and hormones.
I brushed up against a piling, got a small scrath from a barnacle, and weeks later needed surgery. I agree.. "tax the polluters" and in this case, $35/year might have covered my family's share.
Twenty years ago, stormwater wasn't the biggest issue and it still isn't. Engineers have solutions, but it takes...... money to implement. I'm sorry, I'm willing to take my family out to lunch one less time per year if it means I'm being responsible for my own mess and not kicking the can down the road so my kids and their kids can pay for it. With Freedom comes Responsibility!
Do you have a septic system or use the county sewer? Do you fertilize your lawn? Does rain run off your roof and driveway down into the storm drains and eventually into creeks feeding the rivers and bay?
Good questions. Yes, using toxic-free cleaners and substances will definitely help considerably with some aspects of pollution. You may have heard, for instance, about the discovery of intersex fish on the Potomac (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111118805.html) which appears to be in part, attributable to the toxic brew that makes its way into the river. Wastewater treatment plants, as a rule aren't necessarily designed to treat the effects household cleaners, birth control pills, and other chemical inputs. The phosphate ban that you mention was a big victory in terms of reducing phosphorus to our rivers and the Bay. Unfortunately, that's not the only source of phosphorus polluting our waterways. It's also bound to sediments that wash into rivers from farm fields or eroding stream banks. There are many facets to the water quality issues facing the Bay and you have raised a couple. The areas where toxics are the worst are generally areas where heavy industry is or has been present for some time, such as the Anacostia River, Baltimore Harbor, and the Elizabeth River in VA.
Who has accountabiity to show results? How many "Save the Bay" funds are taxpayers already paying into? How effective has the money been spent and what results show for it? Most of the money from these feel-good "fees" seems to go to fund "education" Which means these lobbyists and professional special interest groups keep renting elected reps to milk "fees" from taxpayers to pay themselves to educate us. STOP ALREADY. Show us what everyone is already spending (Federal local and state) and results before we show you anymore money Now, to save the Bay I am going to go flush my toilet 3 times to get my money's worth from the jacked up flush tax we're paying.