Sign up today and save up to 83% on a Hartford Courant digital subscription
CT Now

Neuman's reckless stormwater veto

Anne Arundel County's proposed stormwater fee provided newly appointed County Executive Laura Neuman with her first leadership test, and she failed. Her veto puts the county at risk of sanctions if it does not enact a fee structure by July 1, yet she appears to have no plan for complying with state and federal requirements for reducing the polluted stormwater that is washing into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The County Council should override her reckless decision without delay.

Ms. Neuman has offered two explanations for her veto. The first is her notion that the residents of the county were insufficiently informed of what the proposed fee is and what it's for — a consequence, she theorizes, of the distraction to the government and the public caused by the protracted scandal involving her predecessor, John Leopold. It must be tempting for Ms. Neuman to blame everything she can on the disgraced Mr. Leopold, but she doesn't get off so easily this time.

Anne Arundel County's stormwater fee proposal was developed through a six-month process that included input from the Chamber of Commerce, homebuilders, environmentalists and others. Since it was introduced in the County Council, it has been the subject of public hearings, which have resulted in dozens of amendments. As the other counties required to enact stormwater fees by the General Assembly's 2012 law have done so, the matter has attracted nationwide attention. Moreover, Anne Arundel officials have been talking about enacting a stormwater fee for at least five years. This should hardly be a surprise, and even if it was, the fact remains that the county is required to put a fee structure in place by July 1.

Ms. Neuman's second rationale for her veto is a belief that the fee structure approved by the council is too much, too soon and that Arundel residents are overwhelmed by the panoply of recent tax and fee increases enacted by the state government. No doubt the residents of famously tax-averse Anne Arundel County are unhappy, particularly since the stormwater fees the council approved would have been larger than those levied in some other jurisdictions.

If Ms. Neuman believes the fees are too high, she is welcome to propose an alternative, but she hasn't and doesn't intend to, saying instead that she's curious to see what the council comes up with next. But the council may not have much different to offer here since the amount of the fee was a function of the needs identified by what is now Ms. Neuman's public works department and the financing mechanism for addressing them was determined in consultation with what is now her finance department. The councilmen could propose something lower or phase the fee in, but the county would still risk failing to meet its requirements under the Clean Water Act.

That's the big picture here. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set tough new water quality targets for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and Anne Arundel County has more bay shoreline and tributaries than any other jurisdiction. It has a lot to do to mitigate the effects of polluted stormwater that flows off of roofs, driveways and parking lots and into streams and rivers that feed the bay. If the county fails to meet the July 1 deadline, the state could theoretically take it to court and secure penalties that run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

But the real risk comes if the county falls out of compliance with the Clean Water Act. Anne Arundel (along with the other counties required to enact stormwater fees) faces difficult goals for how much it must reduce its contribution of pollution into the Chesapeake Bay by 2025, and if meeting them seems expensive now, it will only get more so the longer the county waits.

Ms. Neuman is free to dislike that fact. She can kick and scream and curse the EPA. But the bottom line is that when rainwater is channeled into storm sewers rather than soaking into the ground, it takes all sorts of pollution with it. One way or another, the county is going to be required to undertake a variety of projects to mitigate that problem. It can pay for them through a dedicated fee, or it can find the money by shortchanging police, schools, the fire department and all the other things the county pays for. But this exercise is not optional.

Perhaps Ms. Neuman is playing populist here with an eye on the 2014 election, but someone needs to be the grown up in the room. The bill approved by the council was based on extensive study and consultation with experts and affected groups, and it reflected significant public input through the legislative process. There is no way for the council to come up with a well-thought-out alternative by July 1. Its best option is to override Ms. Neuman's veto and make any adjustments that are necessary down the road.

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • Hogan's 'rain tax' straw man

    Hogan's 'rain tax' straw man

    Webster's defines a "straw man" as "an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated." We can find no better example than Gov. Larry Hogan's crusade against what he calls Maryland's "rain tax," which led this week to his introduction of legislation to repeal a law that he claims...

  • Rain tax deserves a real repeal

    Rain tax deserves a real repeal

    Boy, talk about a slanted, biased editorial ("Carroll Co. talks sense on stormwater," April 2). An issue that, if done truthfully, could have been summed up in a paragraph was turned into a diatribe about how misguided the voters are.

  • Rain tax still isn't justified

    Rain tax still isn't justified

    Regarding The Sun's editorial on the stormwater management fee ("Carroll talks sense on stormwater," April 3), let's first explain Gov. Larry Hogan's position in my opinion. He proposed to get rid of the "rain tax," the legislature voted that down and proposed their own biased solution as offered...

  • Carroll Co. talks sense on stormwater

    Carroll Co. talks sense on stormwater

    If there were any doubt that the drive to repeal Maryland's stormwater management fee, AKA "rain tax," is all politics and no substance, it was erased Wednesday when Carroll County, the jurisdiction that has fought hardest against the levy, balked at a bill to repeal it. That's right. Carroll's...

  • Why should I be taxed to subsidize polluters?

    Why should I be taxed to subsidize polluters?

    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)?

  • Churches should not have to pay stormwater fees [Letter]

    Churches should not have to pay stormwater fees [Letter]

    In response to your paper's recent article about churches paying stormwater fees, I would point out that churches provide heavily discounted space for community groups and that many house affordable kindergarten and nursery school programs and provide food and shelter for at-risk populations —...

  • Rain tax exemption not worth the effort

    Rain tax exemption not worth the effort

    When we built our house in Anne Arundel County in 2002, we had to install a $10,000 wastewater management system because we were building within 1,000 feet of a body of water. We found this to be unreasonable but we had no appeal. We were certain that we qualified for an exemption now from the...

  • In rush to cut taxes and fees, lawmakers are sacrificing long-term environmental sustainability

    In rush to cut taxes and fees, lawmakers are sacrificing long-term environmental sustainability

    I was disheartened to read that both Republican and Democratic legislators are already making plans to repeal the stormwater management fees designed to pay for projects that mitigate the only source of Chesapeake Bay pollution that is still on the rise ("After Hogan victory, local governments...