Hey All:
It has been a while since my last post. I am going to try and keep this more up to date and will be making some significant changes in the coming weeks/months. Focus of this blog will shift from general politics to the politics of clean water- a passion of mine and the right of all people.
Below, see a recent article from WTOP for discussion purposes. Question- How can we expect to improve water quality if even the Federal government will not do its fair share?
WASHINGTON - The federal government is refusing to pay millions of
dollars in water bills, and that means the additional cost will
trickle down to you.
In response to unfunded mandates by the Environmental Protection
Agency, many local authorities are charging new fees.
The District of Columbia began itemizing the Impervious Area Charge on
monthly bills in order to defray the costs of this mandate to clean up
stormwater runoff that makes its way into the Anacostia River and then
into the Potomac River. The Potomac runs into Chesapeake Bay, the
nation's largest estuary.
Stormwater runoff is a leading cause of water pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
George Hawkins, general manager of D.C.'s Water and Sewer Authority,
tells WTOP if the federal government doesn't pay its bill, then
someone will have to make up the difference.
"If we don't have the revenue we anticipate from the federal
government, we will have to make up for it from other sources."
Nathan Gardner-Andrews, counsel for the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, says those other sources will be local residents and
businesses.
"To the extent that the federal government refuses to pay its fair
share, then the economic burden falls even more squarely on the
shoulders of local rate payers," Gardner-Andrews says.
In the District, the fee is based on how much land you own, which
means the average homeowner pays about $2.20 a month. The fee for the
federal government -- which owns nearly 20 percent of the land and is
WASA's biggest customer -- is more than $2 million a year.
Hawkins says it's ironic that one federal agency is imposing the
requirements that necessitate the new fees while another agency is
refusing to pay the fees.
"Particularly since the work that we are doing is a direct result of
federal mandates. The federal government should step up and do its
part since they are such a very significant landowner in the city."
Hawkins says the federal government owns more than 30 percent of the
land that generates the stormwater runoff.
The federal government won't pay the fee because it says the fee is a
tax. WTOP has obtained a letter sent to WASA and the U.S. Department
of Treasury from Lynn Gibson, acting general counsel for the
Government Accountability Office:
"The Impervious Surface Area charges adopted by the District appears
to be a tax on property owners. If this is so, GAO's appropriated
funds are not available to pay the assessment due on April 15, 2010,"
Gibson says.
"Accordingly, we are instructing the Department of Treasury not to
make a payment to the District."
Susan A. Poling, managing associate general counsel for GSA, says
"under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, the
United States government is immune from taxation from states, cities
and other municipalities."
The dispute comes down to whether the Impervious Area Charge is a tax or a fee.
Poling says that has yet to be determined in this case.
"Whether something is a tax or a fee requires a good look at the
facts. The federal government can easily pay something that is a fee
where we are getting some kind of service, like a water bill. But we
are immune from taxation."
The dispute over stormwater fees is not limited to the District. The
GAO has sent similar letters to local municipalities across the
country:
In 2006, King County, Wash., was one of the first to get a letter.
Four years later, King County and the GAO have still not resolved the
problem.
In Seattle, taxpayers have had to make up more than $1.6 million in
drainage fees the federal government has refused to pay. "We're
pondering a wide range of solutions, including legal action,"
Assistant City Attorney Greg Narver says.
In Vancouver, Wash., the city attorney's office says the unpaid fees
are costing local taxpayers about $8,000 per month.
In Gwinett County in Georgia, it's costing residents $160,000 a year.
The City of Cincinnati took the issue to court. In 2007, the federal
government reached a settlement with Cincinnati over $100,000 in
unpaid surface water management fees the departments of Health and
Human Services and Veterans Affairs refused to pay the city. Uncle Sam
agreed to pay $17,000.
According to a 2009 GAO opinion, the settlement has "no bearing" on
the determination of other disputed fees.
Hawkins says he has a meeting scheduled with GAO to try and resolve
the billing dispute, but says if that doesn't work he hasn't ruled out
suing the federal government.
"There is a judgment call to be made here that's at a policy level."
Hawkins says. "We can appeal to the Obama Administration and if that
doesn't work then we'll take whatever legal steps we need to take."
