[L]awmakers are ditching a proposal by the Shumlin administration to increase a fee paid on fertilizer, which is intended raise state revenue for water quality restoration efforts, according to David Deen, chair of the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee.
“There are some very strong voices in the hall opposed to it. And we are reacting to political reality around here,” the Westminster Democrat said Friday.
Deen’s committee will likely vote on the state’s primary water quality bill as soon as next week. He said it is unlikely the bill will include the fertilizer fee or another proposal by the administration to tax commercial stormwater runoff.
The fertilizer fee would raise $1.2 million in fiscal year 2016, according to state officials. The money would be used to hire seven new staff at the Agency of Agriculture to help farmers implement runoff pollution control measures and access federal grant money for conservation projects.
Bill Moore, a lobbyists with the Vermont Farm Bureau, said the fee places a disproportionate burden on medium and large farms that are already complying with the state’s water quality rules.
As an alternative, Deen suggested an increase to the rooms and meals tax increase, alcohol tax, non-motorized boat licensing program and a tax for capturing water for the purpose of bottling, among others. He said the proposals will be introduced to the committee on Tuesday.
Agriculture Secretary Chuck Ross said Friday the financial resources from the fertilizer fee proposal are needed to fund the state’s effort to reduce phosphorus pollution entering Lake Champlain — a commitment the state made to the Environmental Protection Agency. Ross did not offer an alternative funding source, but said he would consider the proposals by the committee.
“We don’t have the resource in the agency to hire seven new staff,” he said.
Deen said the committee is likely to scrap another proposal by the administration to tax impervious surfaces that cause stormwater runoff pollution. The flat tax would apply to industrial and commercial properties in the Lake Champlain basin, which some say is unfair to smaller property owners.
Deen said the proposal would be difficult to implement and it was unclear how it would be enforced.
Steven Jeffery, executive director of Vermont League of Cities and Towns, said he supports a tax on impervious development to raise money for water quality, but he said it should be statewide.
He said also it should be collected by the state — not the town.
“If you put it in the property tax bill, people are going to associate it with the town and blame the town for raising their property taxes once again,” he said.
He suggested raising the gas tax to pay runoff control measures on roads.
David Mears, commissioner for the Department of Environmental Conservation, said the fee was intended to raise four to six million dollars. He said other options to raise the money exist, but also have pros and cons.
“If people have rational ways to change it, we are open to looking at those,” Mears said.
Apart from the tax, the department is proposing several new permitting programs designed place new fees on sources of pollution. This includes a septage paid for by haulers based on how much they deliver, a state road permit paid by the Agency of Transportation, a permit for municipal roads by for by towns and a permit of existing development causing storm water pollution by for by property owners.
