From Friends of Harford:
Stormwater management is in the news as Governor-elect Hogan readies his plan to remove the “rain tax” and new county executive Glassman has sent a bill to the county council to repeal Harford’s “rain tax”. It seems we will pay for the stormwater management program out of the general budget. Regardless of the politics, the bottom line still remains the same: we are on the hook to EPA to reduce stormwater runoff from our existing infrastructure.
We found several articles of interest that we will pass on to our readers.
Here are two articles showing that “up-stream” neighbor on the Susquehanna River, Lancaster, PA, is working to reduce pollution of the Chesapeake Bay.
– What’s the Problem? Each year, property owners in the City of Lancaster are responsible for approximately 750 million gallons of polluted water flowing into the Conestoga River and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay. Read more….
– Stormwater Management Fee. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforces strict regulations on polluted stormwater. The City faces potential fines of up to $37,500 per day if we cannot show progress towards eliminating at least 750 million gallons of polluted water discharged into the Conestoga River. To recover the costs of services the City is mandated to provide,the City has adopted a stormwater management fee—an equitable, fair and low-cost solution. Revenue raised through the fee would be specifically dedicated to important infrastructure repairs and improvements that will not only help avoid Federal fines, but also make Lancaster a healthier and greener place to live. Read more….
Greater Fallston Association informed their members of Tree Planting Along Route 152-Fallston. Over the past few weeks, the State Highway Administration (SHA) has planted trees in the state owned Right of Way, (ROW) along Mountain Road in Fallston. The ROW is fairly deep and the goal is to help manage stormwater runoff that would negatively impact the Chesapeake Bay. In technical terms, tree planting is used to manage the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of sediment and nutrients that eventually pollute the Bay.
For more information about the project, what types of trees are being planted, how the sites are selected and how the sites will be managed download this PDF document.
Finally, on a wider note, a Maryland Department of Planning press release, Maryland Department of Planning to Run National Clearinghouse on Smart Growth — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Taps Department to Lead Information Dissemination
BALTIMORE, MD (December 5, 2014) -In a nation with ever-changing demographics and economic shifts, the challenges of planning for growth and development continue to require a comprehensive approach. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which funds a national smart growth website and network, this month awarded a grant to host and coordinate duties to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP).
MDP staff, who applied for the grant last spring, assumed the role of hosting the national Smart Growth Information Clearinghouse and helping staff the Smart Growth Network immediately.
The comprehensive website provides a national repository of educational resources, funding opportunities, news and upcoming events to help state and local decision-makers better perform their jobs. MDP was chosen for its track record of developing and advancing smart growth and sustainable community planning in Maryland.
MDP staff will go beyond maintaining the Clearinghouse site to evaluate how to improve web functions and interactivity,extend outreach and marketing to new user groups and emphasize the quality of the user experience. This proposal seeks to build the functionality and overall success of the SGIC and Smart Growth Network (SGN) through a variety of strategies and channels.
The network serves as a unifying and information-sharing resource for professional organizations, historic preservation advocates, developers, real estate interests and government representatives. EPA chose MDP after a national call for proposals for its wealth of experience in communications and outreach.
Excuses, Excuses. You can’t stop Mother Nature. Could have found a better name for the tax, maybe then we would believe the hype.
Emily show us all the powers of mother nature and go to the inner harbor and dink a big old glass of clean bay water. It’s good for you, I swear it is.
Emily doesn’t need polluted water from the bay, she already gets her daily recommended dose from Fox News, Tea Party, C4L, conservative movement and the republican’t party of hazard county.
Citizen, Mostly Blue and Soul Crusher never comment until someone gets the ball rolling!! Ha Gotcha! Where’s The Soul?
Emily,
I have started many a comments at the Dagger, What are you talking about?? Wrong again, no surprises…
Yawn……
Planting trees are an excellent remedy for all sorts of biological ailments. As long as those used are appropriate for the chosen area. My question is, “Were/are the planting and/or arboreal maintenance jobs subcontracted and to which companies?”
How about you do something about the poop factory in Dundalk. You cannot tell me that the cesspool of waterways haven’t been ruined by the turd factory. I propose to you that if you want to clean up the bay………………you start there.
Brilliant, you don’t even realize the facility you are referencing is a sewage TREATMENT facility. It’s purpose is to treat the sewage that would otherwise go directly into the bay. The “turd factory” as you so eloquently put it, is in fact all the people in the region that, you know, POOP.
I know it is a treatment facility jackass but what you don’t know is there is runoff form that plant that flows into the bay. If that water is so clean than why don’t you try fishing in those waters. Treatment plants are located next to open bodies of water on purpose but they should not be.
Bethlehem Steel put more toxins into that water than you will ever know. Nothing lives in those waterways and wait until they try to develop that land and find all the stuff that was buried in the fields there. It was no accident that anyone who grew up in Dundalk in the sixties and seventies had a car with a red roof on it. The toxins had eaten off the paint on the cars.
maybe try typing what you actually mean next time dummy.
Yeah, and that Shoe factory was built by the water for the view too, huh?
I can’t believe people voluntarily live in Belcamp and Riverside.
WOW, elitist dbag much?
Yes it’s a sewage treatment plant but “treated” water entering the bay is very high in nitrogen and phospherous. So the writer is correct. It is a major source of pollutants. Only a large scale reverse osmosis system would rid this. Way to expensive to do on a large scale. So before you go calling people dummies. Do your dam homework. Dummy
Hey Dummy #2
It is NOT a source of pollutants. Your bowels are the source of pollutants. Try holding it. And FYI, if you and dummy # 1 had done YOUR research, you would have seen the $236 million in improvements approved for this very facility in 2013.
In other words, you are an idiot.
Isn’t it about time to tell the EPA to go shit in their hats?
Back to the original topic: management of stormwater runoff:
Given:
There never has been anything called a “rain tax”. It is a political term coined by anti-Chesapeake Bay people, who are pro-water pollution. If you believe this term, then you have swallowed the toxic term, hook line and sinker and shame on you.
We – county, state, fed – are all officially and legally responsible for ensuring clean water goes into the Bay.
The more impervious surface you own (roofs, parking lots, etc), the more pollution you yourself cause, and should therefore be responsible for paying to clean up. Like a use tax.
One solution was to spread the cost among owners based on how much each was causing. Hence, the Stormwater Management Fee (seeeee: NO TAX!)
Repeal this SWMFee, cut off any property owner responsibility to clean their own runoff, and the General Fund is responsible for funding all the projects required to meet the Clean Water Standards.
I am happy to pay my share of the fee, since I own <.2 acre of impervious surface. Do not expect me to pay for everyone else's share out of the General Fund. Instead of a general, smallish amount we all would have paid, now go get all the funds from those with the most impervious surface. Seems not fair to me, but that is all that's left, once this SWMFee is repealed.
Yes you’re correct… it’s officially “storm water runoff”, however, it seems to me that if it stopped raining we’d have precious little “storm water runoff” to manage. Ergo, rain tax. I suppose we could have included all precipitation and called it the rain/snow/sleet/morning dew etcetera tax. I myself am not “anti-Chesapeake” or “pro water pollution” and can’t say I’ve ever met anyone who could realistically be labeled such. What I am against is how some people tend to feel justified in taking money from everyone else to address issues they feel are urgent – confident that they’ll never run out of other people’s money. Correct me if I’m wrong, but for at least the last 30 years any development built in Maryland has had to provide sufficient storm water runoff retention capacity to offset the area left impermeable by the roads and structures. Developers have grudgingly followed these rules at the cost of building lots lost for retention ponds and now what, that wasn’t sufficient? Wasn’t it the State that calculated, mandated and enforced those very restrictions in order to save the Bay? Can supporters of the tax point to any realistic project that the funds will be used for? Or is it more likely that they feel so strongly that government is inherently good and always knows how our money should be spent better than we do that it’ll do the right thing? I envy them that fantasy as a triumph of hope over experience. The Susquehanna watershed alone covers half of Pennsylvania and parts of New York, but some feel comfortable in having Marylanders foot the bill for cleanup almost single handedly. Now if part of the money was used to take all the garbage (at least the stuff that floats) that piles up against the Dam and haul it back to Pennsylvania where it came from… that would be a good start.
You should read the Lower Susquehanna River Watershed Assessment more carefully.
Do you want to copy articles from other blogs rewrite them in seconds
and post on your blog or use for contextual
backlinks? You can save a lot of writing work, just type in gogle:
rheumale’s rewriter