OK. I was looking for more info on the so-called "Rain Tax" and found some stuff. Even after reading about it (of course like everything else, it's become a big repub vs. dem "outrage"), but as the saying goes, "it was clear as mud, but it covered the ground". Still no clear explanation of how the "fees" will be utilized to actually reduce or eliminate polluted water from emptying into the watershed. The nebulous "monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces."  just doesn't hold water. Since, from what I've read, the bulk of the nitrogen based pollution that runs off into the bay comes from residential and farmland applications of certain fertilizers. If this is a proven root cause, why go after property owners based on the square footage of roof or macadam on your property? Oh yeah, and why does the government exempt itself from responsibility to pay this fee? Something smells fishy here, and it ain't the dead fish.





Maryland’s Controversial ‘Rain Tax’ (It’s Exactly What It Sounds Like

The "storm management fee," passed by the state legislature in 2012.

But first, a little background [via the The Gazette]:

In 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency ordered Maryland to reduce stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay so that nitrogen levels fall 22 percent and phosphorus falls 15 percent from current amounts. The price tag: $14.8 billion.

And where do we get the $14.8 billion? By taxing so-called "impervious surfaces," anything that prevents rain water from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater run off. In other words, a rain tax.

The EPA ordered Maryland to raise the money (an unfunded mandate), Maryland ordered its 10 largest counties to raise the money (another unfunded mandate) and, now, each of those counties is putting a local rain tax in place by July 1.

The 10 areas affected by the "rain tax" include Montgomery, Prince George's, Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Hartford, Charles, Frederick, Baltimore counties, and Baltimore city.

"Fees will be calculated on the surface area of properties as the theory is that roofs, driveways and carparks create more potential for drainage problems and water contamination," Metro explains. "Councils are supposed to determine how much to charge per square foot, but the fee depends on the size of the building and surrounding paved surfaces."

But how will tax collectors know how to tax "impervious surfaces"? How will they know how much to charge per square foot?

Again, we turn to The Gazette: "Thanks to satellite imagery and geographic information systems, Big Brother can measure your roof and driveway (and you thought drones were only used for killing terrorists)."

Yes, according to this report, Maryland will use satellite imagery to calculate "streview of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces." Storm management" fees.

And how does the state plan to spend these new tax dollars? It's unclear:

The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to "monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces." In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

It can also be spent on "public education and outreach" (whatever that means) and on "grants to nonprofit organizations"

Also: "[s]tate lawmakers exempted government-owned property from the rain tax but imposed it on religions and nonprofits (which own big roofs and parking lots)."



Sounds to me like another government band-aid applied to a wound rather than going after root cause issues and attempting to solve them. I hope citizens urge proper accounting for the money collected and how it is spent from these "fees". This pretty much sounds like a boondoggle to me.