In my last post, I described my encounter with Dan the plumber, who challenged my support of the so-called “rain tax” that property owners in Maryland’s most populous counties and Baltimore City have to pay. I realized my argument would have been much stronger if I could have pointed to even a single concrete example of what the Watershed Protection and Restoration Program actually pays for.
Blue crabs — photo courtesy of arthropoda.wordpress.com
That’s the big problem with taxes, isn’t it? There’s rarely a direct, discernible connection between all those bucks we funnel into local, state and federal and governments every year and the benefits we receive in return. The blue crabs returning to the Chesapeake Bay thanks to millions of dollars of pollution-prevention efforts don’t come with little tags reading “Your tax dollars at work.” Even fees (and technically the rain tax is a fee, not a tax) often have this problem, although they are linked directly to a specific and presumably obvious benefit.
In the case of the Watershed Protection and Restoration Program, it’s not as easy as it should be to find out what the program does and where the money is going. A fact sheet on the Maryland Department of the Environment’s website, presumably intended to explain the program to ordinary residents in straightforward language, says this:
“The Watershed Protection and Restoration Program (HB987) was signed into law in April 2012. The program establishes a system of stormwater remediation fees and a local watershed protection and restoration fund (WPRF) that must be implemented by counties and municipalities that are subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit in Maryland. ”
If you fell asleep about halfway through the second sentence of that paragraph, I wouldn’t blame you. A “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit”? Really? This is the language in which government bureaucrats talk to each other. It does nothing to persuade the Dan the plumbers of the world of the benefits of this program. In fact, it doesn’t even try.
The next part of the fact sheet, titled “What does the WPRF pay for,” seems more promising at first. Here’s what it says:
“The WPRF pays for stormwater management, and stream and wetland restoration projects to improve water quality and reduce phosphorus and nitrogen levels entering Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The WPRF may be used for public education and outreach relating to stormwater management, and stream and wetland restoration. The WPRF may be used to pay for the operation and maintenance of existing stormwater management programs and facilities, and for local stormwater management planning activities. The WPRF provides funding for local stormwater management planning, including: Mapping and assessment of impervious surfaces; Monitoring, inspection, and enforcement activities to carry out the program; and Reviewing stormwater management plans and permit applications for new development provided that any existing charges or fees collected are deposited into the fund.”
That’s better — but still leaves much to be desired. “Stormwater management and stream and wetland restoration projects” sound great, but I won’t win any arguments with Dan the plumber on the grounds that some generic “wetland restoration projects” will be funded and that the money coming out of his pocket “may” go toward “operation and maintenance of existing storm water management programs and facilities.” He’s going to want to know: Which facilities in particular? Where are they? What specific wetlands will be restored? Where are they? Can he get there in an hour’s drive from Baltimore? Can he go fishing there?
David Craig, GOP candidate for governor and “rain tax” opponent
The lack of specifics about the program is also fueling high-profile opponents, such as Harford County Executive David Craig, a Republican candidate for governor of Maryland, who wrote an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun last month reflecting those concerns.
Fortunately, there are organizations out there that do a better job than the state of Maryland at explaining what’s happening to the Chesapeake Bay and why controlling storm water runoff is important. The best of and most-established of these is the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which excels at presenting the issue using language and graphics that are clear and to the point. The CBF’s explanation of the storm water pollution problem is the simplest and best I’ve read on the issue. My old friends at the Editorial Board of the Sun have done a pretty good job explaining it, too.
But until we do better at providing the kind of information that Dan the plumber (and David the candidate) are asking for — specifics about which projects are going to get funded, where they are, how much they will cost and how, exactly, we will benefit — skeptics will continue to have the upper hand in these arguments. And the Chesapeake Bay will lose.
Charm City Rising 