Tag Archives: Chesapeake Bay

Giving Frosh His Independence

 

By Barry Rascovar

Feb. 20, 2017—You can’t blame Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr., for getting irritated over the Maryland attorney general’s new authority – granted by the General Assembly – to sue the federal government without the governor’s permission.

This strips Hogan of a smidgen of his enormous powers. Yet if the Republican chief executive truly wished to stop this slight weakening of his powers all he had to do was pick up the phone and negotiate a compromise.

Instead, Hogan gave Attorney General Brian Frosh, one of the mildest mannered men in politics, the cold shoulder when Frosh requested the go-ahead to object in court to President Trump’s temporary ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim nations.

Giving Frosh His Independence

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh

Hogan called the delegation of power to Frosh “crazy” and “horrible” – but the real nuttiness lies in Hogan’s refusal to talk through his objections with Frosh and come to a reasonable arrangement each could live with.

Political Divide

Sure, Hogan is a conservative Republican to the core and Frosh is a down-the-line Montgomery County liberal Democrat.

Still, Frosh almost never picks a fight. His 20 years in the legislature were marked by quiet persuasion based on facts, open dialogue and finding middle ground.

Only when Frosh asked for permission to sue, provided back-up documentation to the governor and was met by silence did he opt to make an un-Frosh-like aggressive move.

Democrats in the House and Senate were happy to help him, since they were alarmed by Trump’s executive order against Muslim refugees and immigrants.

Numerous state attorneys general sued to stop the president’s executive order and temporarily succeeded in blocking it. Frosh wanted authorization from Hogan to do the same thing.

He said he was concerned by clear indications the new administration will wipe out the Affordable Care Act that gives health insurance to 430,000 Marylanders and anti-environmental steps that could damage the health of the Chesapeake Bay. He wanted the tools to speak out on Maryland’s behalf in court.

Weak A.G.

Maryland is one of a handful of states that didn’t –until last week – give its attorney general the independence to sue the federal government without getting an okay from the governor.

Indeed, this state has one of the weakest attorney general offices in the country. Only on rare occasions can Frosh’s office conduct a criminal investigation and try the case—the state’s constitution handed over those broad powers to the local state’s attorneys in 1851.

Maryland’s attorney general primarily staffs the law offices of state agencies, gives legal advice to the governor, General Assembly and judiciary, handles consumer protection issues, defends the state in court litigation and files lawsuits on behalf of state agencies.

Yet this is a statewide office just like the governor and state comptroller. All three are elected by Maryland voters every four years. Their authority is spelled out in the Maryland constitution. Yet Frosh’s office is unusually dependent on the governor for permission to act.

That’s never been a healthy situation.

Why create a constitutional law office without giving that office the freedom to carry out the full range of legal responsibilities normally handled by an attorney general in other states?

Why make the Maryland attorney general such a weak reed, unable to speak for the state on legal matters without first coming on bended knee to the governor for consent?

The current conflict over separation of powers never surfaced when Democrats occupied both offices. Usually the two elected officers were on the same political wave length and agreed on occasional litigation to protest federal actions.

Cover for Hogan

Under Hogan and at times under Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich disagreements have surfaced. Yet this need not have reached a point of separation if Hogan had ordered his skilled legal counsel, Robert Scholz, to work out an accommodation.

Frosh may have been close to the truth when he suggested this new arrangement actually gives Hogan the best of both worlds – despite the governor’s public protests.

Hogan doesn’t want to go on record opposing the new Republican president. He’s trying hard to ignore anything and everything Trump says that provokes controversy.

Yet it’s no secret radicals in the new administration want to deep-six Obamacare and purge all sorts of environmental regulations that could set back efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

Someone has to speak out and protest in court at the appropriate time. Hogan doesn’t want to alienate his Republican core base, yet extreme actions in Washington may require pushback from Maryland to avert harm to citizens and the “Land of Pleasant Living.”

The new delegation of authority by the legislature to Frosh solves that dilemma quite neatly for Hogan. He can continue to ignore Trumpian broadsides and dangerous executive orders while Frosh, on his own volition, tries to block Trump’s moves in court.

The governor’s hands are clean. He hasn’t forsaken the Republican president.

(He also can try to dissuade Frosh through well-reasoned arguments. The power granted Frosh requires that he notify Hogan of the attorney general’s intention to sue, wait 10 days so the governor can put any concerns he has in writing, and then Frosh must “consider the Governor’s  objection before commencing the suit or action.”)

Re-election Battle?

The real danger for Hogan could lie in the next six to 12 months if Trump takes such extreme steps affecting Marylanders, the state’s social programs and its natural resources that Frosh becomes the hero of the day – filing lawsuits repeatedly to stop or reverse Trump’s moves.

Should Hogan continue to remain mum during that time, ignoring the human toll of Trump’s actions, it might hurt the governor’s re-election chances.

Thus, Brian Frosh might place himself at the head of the pack of candidates running for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Could Hogan then face off against the attorney general in November 2018 just as Frosh’s popularity in vote-heavy Central Maryland soars due to his role as Maryland’s defender against heavy-handed actions from Washington?

It’s not far-fetched.

That possibility gains credence with Frosh’s request for a future annual budget of $1 million to create a five-person legal staff to sue the Trump administration when the public interest or welfare of Maryland citizens is threatened – be it their health, public safety, civil liberties, economic security, environment, natural resources or travel restrictions.

If Hogan, for political reasons, won’t oppose Trump and radicals in the administration, Frosh is the logical person to fill that void.

Giving him the power to act isn’t wild and crazy. It’s in line with the way things work in most other states. It ensures that Maryland’s interests will be defended by at least one statewide, constitutional officer elected by the people.

###

Phony ‘Rain Tax’ War

By Barry Rascovar

March 24, 2015 — Opponents, especially Gov. Larry Hogan Jr., deceptively call it the “rain tax.” But the name and the issue are about as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Hogan used his mischaracterization of the stormwater remediation fee to great effect in winning the governorship. “Why they’re even taxing the rain!” he exclaimed in a highly effective TV ad.

Gov. Larry Hogan Jr.

Governor Larry Hogan Jr.

It’s actually a broad user fee based on how much stormwater pollution flows from roofs and parking surfaces — runoff that can cause great harm if it ends up in the Chesapeake Bay.

Hogan turned this into a political anti-tax, anti-government crusade. For him, this unconscionable levy showed the overreach of the O’Malley administration, which taxed anything that moved to fund an ever-growing list of do-gooder social programs.

Hidden Facts

His propaganda pitch worked; now Hogan is governor.

He pledged to eliminate the “rain tax.” but It isn’t working out that way.

Here’s a fact Hogan never told voters: Even if he could eliminate the “rain tax,” that step wouldn’t lower state or county spending by a penny.

Indeed, wiping out the “rain tax” would have zero impact on Hogan’s state budget. Repeat: zero impact.

It would affect some county taxpayers who now are assessed a stormwater remediation fee on their annual property tax bill. They could see their county taxes lowered minimally.

Another Catch

Here’s another catch: In each of the 10 jurisdictions affected by the “rain tax,” eliminating the levy could force county officials to make cuts in other programs like schools and public works.

It would be a lose-lose scenario.

That’s because these counties and Baltimore City are under a federal mandate to reduce polluted stormwater pouring into the bay. With or without the “rain tax,” they are required to continue paying for costly stream restoration and other cleanup efforts.

For example, Baltimore County spends $22 million a year on its remediation work. That money comes from the “rain tax.”

Eliminate the levy and the county still must come up with $22 million for those environmental-protection projects. That’s about the cost of a new elementary school.

In other words, it’s a zero-sum game.

If Hogan were to get his way, county governments would be squeezed to find money for those mandated environmental activities. Other programs financed by the counties would take the hit, be it schools, government-worker pay raises, road repairs or social programs.

Symbolic Reduction

Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz already has made a symbolic reduction in his county’s stormwater remediation fee, lowering the levy by one-third. He found roughly $8 million of savings in his budget that now will be used for these anti-pollution projects.

Stream restoration

Stream restoration project in Baltimore County

The county’s stormwater remediation work continues unimpeded. In future years, though, it could become increasingly difficult to find that extra money without cutting back in other areas.

 

Miller’s Plan

On the state level, symbolism is the name of the game, too.

Senate President Mike Miller, the most astute political mind in Annapolis, came up with the ideal Democratic response to Republican Hogan’s “no rain tax” demand.

Miller won unanimous Senate approval for his bill that makes the county remediation fee optional.

If Frederick County, Harford County or Carroll County wants to get rid of the fee totally, they are free to do so. But they still have to ante up millions to finance a long list of remediation projects.

That burden remains.

Indeed, Miller’s bill requires those counties to specify their remediation efforts and identify how they will be funded. Failure to do so could lead to a loss of state dollars.

Smarter county officials, who understand the value of spreading the tax burden for these anti-pollution efforts, could continue their fees under Miller’s bill. They won’t have to limit other county programs to make room for mandated remediation projects.

Curious Debate

Whether Miller’s “rain tax” option makes it through the House of Delegates is in doubt. Some Democrats there want to keep the current fee in place, despite the political advantage it gives Hogan and his conservative allies.

It’s one of the more curious debates to grip Annapolis in years.

No state taxes are involved.

No county saves a penny if Hogan gets his way.

The stormwater anti-pollution programs must continue — unless a county wants to get sued by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Miller’s compromise bill offers a sensible way out for everyone. That’s why Hogan has thrown his support behind it.

Regardless of the outcome, this phony “rain tax” war will continue. Hogan will milk it for all it is worth — even if the facts aren’t on his side.

###

Common Sense and LNG Exports

By Barry Rascovar

March 10, 2014 — FINALLY, a dose of common sense in the swirl of hysterical hype and fear-mongering by environmental groups over the proposed liquid natural gas export project at Cove Point in Southern Maryland.

Cove Point LNG Terminal in Lusby, MD

Cove Point LNG Terminal in Lusby, MD

If you listen to the protesting greenies, this $3.8 billion project by the large energy company Dominion will send natural gas prices higher, promote the use of dirty energy sources like oil and coal, pollute the Chesapeake Bay, pollute Maryland’s air, worsen global warming and encourage more shale-oil fracking.

Few of those assertions have much credence. Some are bald-faced, and intentional, twisting of the truth.

More on target is Virginia-based Dominion’s assertion that environmentalists are trying to use this LNG project as a proxy for their war on hydraulic fracturing of shale rock and the Keystone Pipeline. Neither has a direct link to what Dominion wants to do.

‘Clear and Unambiguous’

That’s why it was refreshing to hear common sense applied to this propaganda battle by Judge Michele Hotten of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, who strongly supported a circuit court ruling in Dominion’s favor.

It was “clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote in a recent 3-0 decision, that an LNG export terminal is permitted at Cove Point under a 2005 agreement with environmental groups. Period. End of argument.

Those groups won’t let it end, though. They are intent on litigating this project ad infinitum — anything to delay and eventually kill this evil proposal.

The problem is that what Dominion wants to do at Cove Point isn’t evil. It isn’t a pox on the environment. Quite the contrary.

Proposed expansion at Cove Point LNG Terminal

Proposed expansion at Cove Point Terminal

Dominion wants to export $6 billion a year in LNG to India and Japan, two nations that are heavy polluters of the air by burning huge amounts of oil and coal. Natural gas, by contrast, is a far cleaner-burning substitute source of energy and a far more energy-efficient commodity.

Which is better: Burning coal and oil or burning natural gas?

We should know the answer since Maryland and most other states are forcing utilities to shutter their existing oil-burning and coal-burning electric plants in favor of the vastly superior alternative, natural gas.

Double-hulled Tankers

But won’t Cove Point harm the bay?

Not really. Dominion expects about 85 double-hulled tankers to visit its terminal annually — the same number as visited Cove Point at its peak when it served as an import terminal between 1978 and 1980. Besides, LNG is super-safe. If there’s a spill, the natural gas evaporates and dissipates because it is lighter than air. There has yet to be an environmental disaster caused by an LNG tanker.

But won’t Cove Point stimulate more fracking?

Of course not. That’s a manufactured canard. Cove Point’s exports won’t influence the decision by energy companies to drill for oil and gas using hydraulic fracturing techniques. The rush is on to discover more of this country’s abundant supply of cleaner-burning natural gas. If Cove Point never exports a cubic foot of LNG it will have zero impact on the future of fracking.

Nor will Cove Point have anything to do with the Keystone Pipeline decision. Connecting the two is preposterous and an indication of extreme paranoia.

Given that Cove Point is one of 21 LNG export proposals seeking regulatory approval — plus another six that have gotten the federal go-ahead, its impact in the greater scheme of things is being incredibly overblown.

Impact on Pricing

Won’t Dominion raise natural gas prices by exporting this commodity?

Pure buncombe. Two years from now, U.S. production of natural gas is projected to exceed domestic consumption. Energy independence is within reach.

Once the U.S. starts exporting energy, it will have a positive impact on shrinking this country’s trade deficit.

A new office within the State Department is vigorously pursuing “energy diplomacy” based on the growing U.S. ability to export vast quantities of LNG. Natural gas exports are likely to become a key geopolitical weapon against Russia’s aggression in the Ukraine and a way to draw that struggling nation away from Vladimir Putin’s grasp.

Cove Point exports, starting in 2017, will be part of that American effort. The LNG plant also will provide a big boost for Maryland’s economy. Thousands of high-paying construction jobs. Seventy-five new permanent jobs. A 60 percent boost in Maryland’s exports. A big jump in sales and income taxes for the state and Calvert County.

No wonder an overflow crowd at a March 1 hearing in Southern Maryland overwhelmingly supported Dominion’s project.

LNG hearing in Southern Maryland

LNG hearing in Southern Maryland

That hasn’t stopped the greenies, who rounded up supporters from the Baltimore area to stage a big protest as the Maryland Public Service Commission began hearings on this case.

Anti-Cove Point protesters in Baltimore

Anti-Cove Point protesters in Baltimore

But the PSC’s role is narrow: Whether to permit construction of two natural gas turbines that will provide the energy for compressing the natural gas to minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit (that’s when the gas turns to liquid).

Baltimore protest of LNG Terminal project

Baltimore protest of LNG Terminal project

The PSC’s staff has recommended approval. It’s pretty much a straight-forward proposal — two clean-burning turbines to power the liquefaction. The heat generated during that process would be recycled to provide energy for the rest of the Cove Point facility, thus reducing the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions.

This project is being studied to exhaustion. Twenty-one thousand pages of reports and information have been prepared for regulatory agencies. Fifty more permits and approvals are still needed before the three-year construction phase commences. Final approval rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy.

That’s why it was refreshing to see the courts take a no-nonsense approach and examine the facts rather than heeding the heated, emotional rhetoric of opponents. But this battle is far from over, which is a shame.

#     #     #

 

 

 

The 50th State: Delmarva?

Pipe Dreams Don’t Come True

By Barry Rascovar

September 25 — Several reader comments, plus a former congressman’s email to MarylandReporter.com, take exception to an omission from politicalmaryland.com’s September 23 column: “The 51st State: Western Maryland.

Why wasn’t secession talk on Maryland’s Eastern Shore part of that blog?

Yes, unhappy Eastern Shore politicians have earned a few headlines in local papers over the decades by submitting secession bills to the Maryland General Assembly that have no chance of being taken seriously.

From ‘Outhouse’ to ‘Our House’

Reader Brian Klaff comments:

“If you’ll recall, this isn’t even the first time this has happened in Maryland.  I distinctly recall that in 1991 when Governor [William Donald] Schaefer called the Eastern Shore “the state’s outhouse” (in not-quite-as-nice terminology), there was a movement for those counties (Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, Caroline, Dorchester, Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester) to secede and start a 51st state called Chesapeake.

“And according to Wikipedia, there were similar proposals for the Eastern Shore in 1833, 1835, 1852, and even 1998 (put forth by State Senators [Richard] Colburn and [Lowell] Stoltzfus) to create a break-away state of Delmarva.”

Maligned and Neglected

Former Rep. Robert E. Bauman, who served the Eastern Shore in both the House of Representatives and state Senate, commented to Maryland Reporter editor Len Lazarick:

Former U.S. Rep. Robert Bauman

Former U.S. Rep. Robert Bauman

“If any area of Maryland has a right to feel neglected it is the Shore, maligned by the late Governor Schaefer as the ‘outhouse’ of Maryland and by H. L. Mencken as ‘booboisie.’ It is viewed by [Governor Martin] O’Malley as a hotbed of Tea Party Republicans who cannot be gerrymandered congressionally, unfortunately from his very partisan perspective.

“In 1972 I sponsored a bill to allow a referendum on the issue in my five Upper Shore counties…. We had a major pro-statehood rally at the State House that drew about a thousand people from all over the Shore, complete with Shore food (oysters, crabs, chicken), music and speeches. Of course the Democrats, led by the late [Eastern Shore] Sen. Fred Malkus, blocked my bill but the publicity contributed to my election to the [U.S.] House in a special election in 1973.

“Research will show that advocacy of Eastern Shore statehood goes back to the 1800s when there were two administrative co-capital cities, one in Annapolis and the other in Easton with separate State Treasurers, Comptrollers and Secretaries of State — and the only transportation connection was by boat.

“When I was asked at the statehood rally by a WTOP reporter what the Eastern Shore state would be called, I replied: ‘Maryland — let those other folks on the western shore get another name.’ ”

Yearning To Be Heard

Indeed, it was a good publicity stunt for Bauman. But it was nothing more. The yearning to be heard and heeded in liberal Annapolis is strong on the conservative Eastern Shore. Conservative Western Marylanders have a similar yearning. Secession talk is a useful way to make that point.

As a separate state,  those nine Shore counties could not make it alone.

Six of the counties have poverty rates above 10 percent. Direct aid from Maryland far overshadows what those counties pay in income taxes. Over 3,000 jobs would be lost if Maryland closed its two college campuses and a big prison on the Shore.

Over $360 million in annual spending at those three Maryland facilities would be lost. The new state would have to create a vast new police force to replace the State Troopers now patrolling much of the Shore for the counties east of the Chesapeake Bay.

A far more sensible approach would be to create an entity called Delmarva, consisting of the nine Maryland Eastern Shore counties, the two isolated Virginia counties to the south and the state of Delaware.

State of Delmarva

State of Delmarva

It would be an ideal geographic fit: the entire Delmarva Peninsula united as a single government entity.

The poor and sparsely populated Delmarva Virginia counties (45,500 folks) have much in common with their Delmarva neighbors to the north.

It’s a rural farming and fishing region.

All of them are separated from the “mainland” by the nation’s largest estuary, the mighty Chesapeake. Why not join them all together in the re-named state of Delmarva?

What Would Wilmington Say?

There’s no chance of a merger with prosperous Delaware, though. Democrats there rule the state capital and all the congressional offices. There’s no advantage for Wilmington to annex two territories from other states that are far more conservative, Republican and less well off.

Perpetuators of the State of Delmarva myth can’t overcome that reality.

If the new state were limited to the nine Maryland counties, it would be unable to afford current government services without increasing — not decreasing — taxes. The Eastern Shore gets far more in Maryland revenue that it returns to the Annapolis treasury.

So while it’s entertaining to give fanciful secession talk media coverage, it’s wishful thinking — the same kind of day-dream I employ when the multi-state lottery reaches $100 million.

In that dream, I’ve already decided not to take the cash option.

###

Read more columns at www.politicalmaryland.com

 

Law Clinics, Farmers and Fairness

By Barry Rascovar / August 3, 2013

THE SAD SAGA of the Hudson Family farm continues.

You remember the Hudsons, who raise Cornish hens for Perdue and also a herd of beef cattle on 300 acres near Berlin on Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore.

Alan and Kristin Hudson

Alan and Kristin Hudson

Alan and Kristin Hudson got sued in 2007 by the New York-based Waterkeeper Alliance, which hoped to win a landmark case holding Perdue liable for water pollution in drainage ditches caused by chicken manure from a sub-contractor like the Hudsons.

The plaintiffs, represented in part by the University of Maryland’s Environmental Law Clinic, embarrassed themselves. It was such a botched job that it makes an ideal case study (perhaps at the rival University of Baltimore Law School).

Now comes the sequel: The federal judge who threw out the Waterkeeper case with critical comments about the poor quality of attorney work has now denied Perdue and the Hudsons $3 million in legal fees.

But in doing so, U.S. District Senior Judge William Nickerson pounded the law clinic and environmental group once again. He said their lawyers presented a weak case; they intentionally misled the public in statements to the media; settlement efforts were insincere, and their terrible pre-trial preparation led to defeat in court.

If ever there was a teachable moment for law school students, this is it.

Plaintiff’s Missed Opportunities 

Here’s what Judge Nickerson had to say:

“Plaintiff only needed to establish that Hudson’s chickens contributed in some way to the high levels of pollutants coming off the farm and ultimately entering the Pocomoke River.” But the Waterkeeper lawyers missed that chance by “the lack of sufficient and appropriate sampling and testing.” Such an elemental mistake, the judge concluded, made it impossible to tell if the chickens or the cows caused the water pollution.

When the clinic’s legal team switched tactics and tried to blame bacterial pollution on “chicken dust” from exhaust fans in the chicken houses, it again failed to take samples. The judge wrote in a biting commentary, “One is left to ponder why Plaintiff failed to conduct the testing that, at least in hindsight, seems so obviously necessary and critical to the proof of its claim.”

This, according to the judge, was a key “tactical misjudgment.”

The case turned, in his view, on the Waterkeeper and law clinic lawyers’ “failure to properly prepare its case by conducting the necessary sampling.”

Poor Legal Work

In a classic judicial understatement, Judge Nickerson added, “In this Court’s view, Plaintiff’s claim was not pursued or litigated as well as it could have been.”

Put in more common terms, it was a royal screw-up.

Yet because the case wasn’t frivolous or unreasonable, the judge decided punitive payment of legal fees should not be assessed.

Judge Nickerson was especially upset about the Waterkeeper and law clinic attorneys’ handling of pre-trial settlement talks. He looked at all the negotiating documents and concluded litigators were “not seriously working to settle this matter.” Indeed, they demanded more concessions from Perdue than they could have gained in court, according to the judge.

They rejected a Perdue offer to jointly fund an educational institution to study agriculture-related issues. As a result of the Waterkeeper’s hostile action, Perdue also ended a clean waters initiative to help chicken farmers become better environmental stewards.

With considerable sadness the judge wrote, “It is disappointing that no agreement that could have actually benefitted the Chesapeake Bay came from these negotiations. . . . It is most unfortunate that so much time and so many resources were expended on this action that accomplished so little.”

The non-diplomatic version: What a pathetic effort and what a waste of time and money that could have been put toward cleaning up the bay.

On to Annapolis

That’s not the end, though.

The Hudsons’ lawyer says he will go before the state Board of Public Works demanding reimbursement for legal fees.

There’s $300,000 in the state budget because of the law clinic’s questionable involvement in prosecuting (critics use the word “persecuting”) the Hudsons. Gov. Martin O’Malley got so angry he wrote to the law school dean about the propriety of such partisan educational activity.

Enraged rural legislators also tacked another $250,000 onto the budget for the University of Maryland to start an agricultural law clinic or advisory group to “assist farmers in the state with estates and trusts issues, compliance with environmental laws and other matters necessary to preserve family farms.”

Clearly, the law clinic’s ill-fated representation of the Waterkeeper Alliance in going after Eastern Shore chicken farmers has generated widespread State House skepticism.

When the reimbursement issue comes before the board, pointed questions will almost surely be directed at the law clinic and the University of Maryland, Baltimore’s president.

This unfortunate judicial episode could have and should have been avoided. It is proving costly to taxpayers and deeply embarrassing to the law clinic.

It’s time to move on, if only leaders at the law school can put their personal and professional egos aside long enough to find an even-handed way to teach students about both sides of environmental law.

 ###

Stormwater tax unpopular but necessary

By Barry Rascovar / Community Times | July 10, 2013

WHEN YOUR PROPERTY TAX bill arrived by mail last week, you may not have noticed a slight addition: an extra $21, $32 or $39 — depending on your type of residence — for “Stormwater Remediation.”

This is overdue recognition that stormwater pouring from roofs and parking pads pollutes the Chesapeake Bay, promotes flooding and soil erosion and leads to drinking water contamination.

Embarking on fixes takes money.

It’s similar to another charge, $60, on the same bill for the Bay Restoration Fund. This is better known as the “flush tax” promoted by Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich.

That money is spent on costly sewage treatment plant upgrades to remove nitrogen and other pollutants before the cleansed water is dumped into streams, rivers and the Chesapeake.

They are necessary expenses if we care about our environment.

None of us like to pay taxes. That’s been true since the American Revolution — remember the original Tea Party in Boston and other colonial cities?

But delivering government services and preserving our valuable natural resources can’t be done for free.

In Baltimore County, the fee to deal with stormwater runoff pays for such services as street sweeping, storm drain cleaning, maintenance and improvements, shoreline stabilization, tree planting and reforestation, among other things.

The county’s charge is $21 for a townhouse, $32 for a condo and $39 for a single-family home. This is far cheaper than Baltimore City, between $40 and $120 per residence, and generally less than Howard County, $15 to $90.

Anne Arundel County is phasing in its stormwater fee, $34 to $85, over three years and Harford County has a 10-year phase-in of its $125 fee while a task force studies other options.

The fee is mandated by state law affecting 10 jurisdictions that contribute the most to stormwater pollution of the bay.

A few counties refused to take the state mandate — required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency — seriously. They could face hefty fines or a whopping cleanup tab down the road.

Carroll County’s staunchly conservative commissioners aren’t imposing any fee and will pay for cleanup projects out of the county’s annual budget. Frederick County’s even more conservative commissioners imposed a $1 per residence fee and dared the EPA and Maryland to object.

Meanwhile, a Baltimore County Republican known for his grandstanding is leading a drive to repeal the so-called “rain tax.” Del. Pat McDonough has as much chance of succeeding as stopping the rain from falling on roofs and other impervious surfaces.

When you think about it, this fee and Ehrlich’s “flush tax” are cost-effective ways to show our support for clean water. For less than $100 a year every resident in Baltimore County contributes to a greener environment that makes it safer to swim in our rivers and bay, drink water from our taps and preserve this state’s greatest treasure, the Chesapeake.

 Barry Rascovar is a political columnist whose writings can be viewed as www.politicalmaryland.com. His email address is brascovar@hotmail.com.

Maryland’s New Taxes: Why Now?

By Barry Rascovar / July 2, 2013

TAXES ON GASOLINE in Maryland went up 3.5 cents on Monday; crossing toll bridges and tunnels got a lot more expensive, especially for truckers. Fees to combat stormwater pollution kicked in as well in the greater Baltimore-Washington area.

Higher gas taxesIt’s a big pill to swallow, even in a state whose leaders have felt no compunction about raising over 40 taxes, especially on businesses and the well-too-do, during the O’Malley-Brown reign in Annapolis.

Yes, the fees and taxes that commenced July 1 are necessary over the long run. We may not like it, but progress comes with a price.

Land of Toxic Living?

Would we rather watch bridges collapse, beltway congestion mushroom and pollution of streams, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay turn Maryland into the “Land of Toxic Living”?

It’s the timing and the size of these tax increases that are so terrible.

The burden imposed on businesses and non-profits is harmful and counter-productive. Critics have a right to mock the state’s chief executive by cynically shouting: “Pile high the taxes, Martin!”

Wait Till Later

Even worse, the first stage of the gasoline tax in Maryland pales compared with future increases dictated under the new law that could total 65 cents. The cries of anguish and anger will dog the next administration in Annapolis — a gift from the departing governor.

It didn’t have to play out this way.

A thoughtful, practical and courageous approach by political leaders in the Maryland State House would have led to action much sooner. That would have meant smaller levies phased in over time and two decades of transportation and environmental upgrades.

A Better  Way

It’s no surprise that more must be spent today to stem pollution caused by stormwater runoff. If Maryland had acted sooner, the fees would have been more modest and the remediation would have been cheaper.

Instead, O’Malley & Co. waited . . . and waited . . . and waited until the Environmental Protection Agency strong-armed Maryland and other nearby states to commit to big pollution cleanups.

It also was no surprise Maryland needed more money to repair dilapidated bridges and highways. Yet no governor and no legislature in the last 20 years had the courage to do the right thing..

Gone With The Wind

Instead, they took the Scarlett O’Hara approach: They put off difficult decisions until Maryland faced a transportation crisis and construction costs had soared.

As a result, Marylanders face a raft of gas tax increases that eventually will make this state one of the costliest in the nation at the pump. The new tolls for some truckers are so severe it may put their businesses in jeopardy.

Governors and legislators also dramatically raised the cost for fixing transportation and environmental shortcomings by waiting.

Parris Didn’t Get It

Had Gov. Parris Glendening overcome his political trepidation and acted in the best, long-term interests of Maryland he would have insisted in the 1990s on a gas tax increase tied to inflation. He also would have imposed modest fees to stem sewage plant and stormwater pollution of the Chesapeake.

The same can be said of Bob Ehrlich, who jacked up transportation licensing fees instead of biting the bullet with a far larger tax increase at the pump. He deserves credit, though, for imposing an unpopular “flush tax” to modernize sewage treatment plants. It didn’t win him points with conservatives — and hurt his reelection chances — but it was the right thing to do.

O’Malley failed to seize his moment (“carpe diem”) in 2007 when he had a golden chance to ram through a gas tax increase along with slots legalization. A small environmental cleanup fee could have been tacked on at that time, too.

So Many Missed Opportunities

We could have averted the current round of tax hikes but no one in the State House took the high road. They worried about re-electability instead of Maryland’s long-term viability.

We would have had better roads and bridges, too, and a cleaner Chesapeake Bay had our political leaders acted wisely in the past. Two decades of progress in transportation and the environment were lost.

Our leaders haven’t been very courageous. We’re paying the price for that today.

To receive immediate delivery of all new columns, click on the subscribe button on the right, or go to www.politicalmaryland.com.

 

Bad Science And The ‘Rain Tax’

By Barry Rascovar / May 24, 2014

Chesapeake Bay   A STORM IS BREWING in the Chesapeake region over ways to go about, and pay for, the bay’s expensive pollution cleanup.

Conservative politicians, especially Republicans, are having a field day deriding the stormwater runoff fee mandated last year by the Maryland General Assembly. Local Baltimore-Washington governments must set fee schedules by July 1. Whoever first attached the derisive moniker “rain tax” to the stormwater levy deserves a gold star from Propaganda Addicts Anonymous.

The phrase stuck like crazy glue. It has come to symbolize — in a gross distortion — the overreach of an oppressive, heavily intrusive government in the Annapolis State House. “Now they’re even taxing the rain!” is the way those in the no-tax crowd describe the situation.

What a great slogan for spinning the story. No tax is a good tax in the eyes of these neo-Republicans, but a tax on rain? How ludicrous.

Never mind that the levy makes eminent sense. Polluted water running off non-absorbing services — like driveways, roofs, roads, and parking lots — contribute mightily to today’s pollution of the Chesapeake Bay, one of the world’s most valuable estuaries.

Truth be told, a tax on impervious surfaces should have been put in place decades ago. It’s so obvious that this dirty runoff, chock full of nitrogen, phosphorus and other harmful chemicals, needs to be treated before reaching the bay.

That’s going to cost a pretty penny, which is compounded by Maryland’s late start. The Environmental Protection Agency’s cleanup plan comes in at nearly $15 billion with the states footing a large share of the bill.

As much as opponents mock the “rain tax,” they haven’t proposed an alternative. Ignore the problem? Let the Chesapeake slowly turn into a massive “dead zone”?  Pollution remedies are not cheap. Some taxes are necessary and inevitable.

Unfortunately, too many local leaders are imposing large and sometimes onerous fees on businesses with industrial and commercial property containing lots of impervious surface. That could drive companies to other subdivisions with cheaper fees.

Things could get far worse in the ten Maryland counties implementing stormwater runoff fees. Indeed, these levies could mount in future years due to flawed scientific data affecting another aspect of the Chesapeake cleanup.

It turns out the EPA may have been dead wrong in blaming farmers, especially poultry farmers, for much of the bay’s pollution problems. A study conducted by two University of Delaware professors and a University of Maryland poultry specialist found the EPA’s computer models for determining Chesapeake pollutants decades out of date.

Bad science leads to bad results. In this case, the study showed actual phosphorous pollution from poultry manure in one Delaware county (Sussex) was less than half the EPA figure. Nitrogen pollution was 38 percent of the EPA number and total chicken manure produced turned out to be just one-fifth of the EPA figure.

These are huge differences. The EPA could be wildly overestimating the extent to which poultry farmers pollute bay waters. The professors, led by James Glancey, studied thousands of manure tests and recent shipment logs rather than relying on old EPA data from the 1980s.

Even though the potentially landmark study has not yet been peer reviewed or published, an EPA work group and state environmental officials may move quickly to modernize the bay’s computer models. Glancey’s results are hard to refute because they flow from current data.

This could mean reduced emphasis on new regulations to rein in pollutants from Delmarva farms and far greater emphasis on the obvious major contributor, suburban and urban water pollution sources.

If that, indeed, is the case, the derided “rain tax” may need to be increased consistently in future years.

After a heavy storm, visit Baltimore City’s Inner Harbor and look at what flows into the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River from the Jones Falls. It’s not pretty.

Cleaning up this mess, and others like it in the Chesapeake catchment area, will take a long time and a lot more dollars from the “rain tax.”