Municipalities oppose a pollution fee increase proposed by the Shumlin administration because there is no money to help them pay for the costly infrastructure upgrades needed to curb runoff from roads and developed land.
Proposed pollution reductions required under the state’s plan to restore Lake Champlain’s water quality, known as the TMDL, could cost Burlington property owners who pay stormwater user fees up to $20 million, a city official said Thursday.
Cities will be required to reduce pollution runoff flowing from developed lands and roads in order to comply with new and existing permit regulations. Projects that allow runoff to enter the ground, such as a rain garden or drainage ditch, would likely stop flows into waterways.
But the administration has not proposed any money to assist municipalities in this effort, according to Karen Horn, the director of public policy and advocacy for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.
“Were being asked to do a substantial proportion of the work. We’re going to be on the hook for permits, and we are going to have to pay permit fees to support state staff and there is not a funding source that anyone has settled on,” Horn said.
The administration proposes increasing permit fees on stormwater and wastewater pollution by an estimated 60 percent over last year on top of several new permit programs. In all, the administration proposes raising $1.5 million in permit fees to pay for 13 new staff at the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The staff would be used for public outreach and inspections for compliance with new and existing regulations designed to curb water pollution. Some of these permits would require upgrades to roads and stormwater infrastructure where prohibited pollution occurs.
The department has said it will target projects that best align with planned construction, in part, to reduce the cost of the clean-up effort.
Horn said towns are willing to pitch in to help clean up the state’s water bodies, but there must be some financial assistance. According to a 2013 report on water quality, it would cost annually more than $100 million to address stormwater runoff — costs that would likely be felt through property tax hikes.
The costs could be much higher for some municipalities like Burlington. In Burlington Bay, phosphorous loading accounts for 81 percent of the bay’s phosphorus pollution.
The city is being asked to reduce its stormwater phosphorus loading by 25 percent in addition to tighter restrictions on the wastewater treatment plant.
In Burlington, this means the city will have to retrofit nearly 500 acres of impervious surfaces, costing an estimated $15 to $20 million, according to Megan Moir, stormwater program manager for Burlington.
She said the city will be installing green infrastructure, such as rain gardens and collection tanks, to prevent runoff from flowing into the sewage system. She said these practices are simple, but can be difficult to install in an already developed city.
“Trying to fit it in after the fact is a challenge,” she said. “Every project is slightly more complicated. You are trying to tie into existing infrastructure.”
Meanwhile, she said the state is trying to upgrade existing infrastructure, such as its 100-year-old sanitary and combined sewer infrastructure and corrugated metal separate storm system pipes. The city also must also restore several other waterbodies in the greater Burlington area.
She said the city is not opposing the fees — though she would prefer some assistance — because it could cost more if the state doesn’t come up with the money to restore Lake Champlain’s water quality. If the state fails to demonstrate a financial commitment to the clean up, the Environmental Protection Agency has said it will tighten restrictions on wastewater treatment plants and stormwater infrastructure.
“Then it could get a lot worse for us,” she said.
David Deen, Chair of the Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee, said the bill will help direct money to municipalities for road and municipal runoff projects.
He said the committee will propose raising $13 million for water quality. This may include a $10 per ton fee on fertilizer, a fee on feed and grain, a per parcel tax on impervious commercial development, an increase to the rooms and meals tax, an increase to the alcohol tax, and a 2 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline tax, among other possibilities.
Deen said the committee has defined the size of the “bread box” and will fill it with new fees and taxes that are shared by all residents, businesses and visitors.
“The ones that attract me, everyone is in,” he said.
Gov. Peter Shumlin proposed raising up to $7 million in new revenue for a proposed Clean Water Fund, as well as another approximate $13 million for pollution control measures on farms, roads and developed land. Lawmakers overhauled the two proposals by the administration to tax commercial properties and increase a fee on fertilizers. Towns wanted the tax applied statewide and and collected by the state, and farmers opposed the fee because it was not broad based.
During a water quality forum before the full House chamber on Wednesday, Democratic leadership reminded lawmakers if they fail to pass water quality legislation this biennium — as well as the necessary funding to back it up — the Environmental Protection Agency will issue its own regulations of wastewater treatment plants, which officials say costs much and does little to improve water quality.
“The levers that they have are blunt instruments, and they will not be the best way that we can solve the problems” said House Speaker Shap Smith. “If we do not do it this year, the work will be done for us and it will not be done as effectively.”
