Good Idea
The State of Florida has Stormwater Districts.
The basis for this are English Water Right's Law that predates the United States. Those downstream from you are damaged by anything you do that increases or decreases water flow, such as damming or rechanneling a stream. Since all runoff eventually gets to a stream the law applies. One thing about the law there is no statute of limitations that after a certain time whatever you did is OK. Understanding the time occurences of extreme storm events the law may apply to actions more than 100 years old.
An impervious surface fee is not simple to apply since the biggest source of impervious surface occurs from streets and sidewalks within the public right of way. That is a general burden for all to bear and the cost for that amount of runoff must come from a general source. I stress the word fee not tax, because churches, schools, hospitals and colleges have impervious surfaces which affect runoff and would be obligated to pay fees but not taxes.
What confuses the simplicity of the process is that some development has been required to construct stormwater control measures that reduce the useable area of their land. How does that affect their fee? Given that I believe that most stormwater detention is nothing but a cruel expensive joke that does not meet cost benefit criteria I would still consider the challenge of implementing and managing a stormwater district. Floods are regional occurences and as such proper stormwater districts may be bigger than states. The Corps of Engineers have been trying to manage the Mississippi River out of general funds, imagine what they could do given the ability to collect annual fees from everyone in the Mississippi Watershed. In other words the Walmart in Montana pays for the New Orleans levees.
New Haven is downstream from most of the potential runoff so it may be totally ineffective if it does not include the entire Quinnipiac basin.
Paul in PA
This has been coming for years. It's called Phase II Stormwater Regulation. It's an unfunded EPA mandate to municipalities. The only way for municipalities to comply is to somehow find funding through either a tax or a Stormwater Utility (because many large enterprises like Universities and Hospitals are tax exempt).
This has been upheld to the Appellate Federal court level and the SCOTUS will not hear it, so EPA has started to ramp up enforcement. It's coming soon to a town near you too.
Already have it here, at least in my town, for more than 10 years. We call it the Rain Tax!
Western Oregon gets lots of rain, along with Western Washington.
We've had similar in Oklahoma municipalities for years.
My question is: could the tax be avoided by construction of a detention structure with release equivalent to natural (undeveloped) runoff? Hey, you could save yourself $2.50 a month!
Yes, as I understand it, you must contain ALL your storm water.
DENVER STARTED THAT WHEN THEY GOT GIS, THEY CALCULATED ALL ROOF AND CONCRETE AREAS AND SUCKED 1-400 MORE DOLLARS OUT OF ALL HOME AND BUSINESS OWNERS--GOOD LUCK FIGHTING IT--TDD
Just another BS excuse to tax the people. Makes me nauseous.
Paden
What they would do is tax you for the detention pond or structure on your property tax bill. Those people have no conscious.
Philadelphia has been charging a stormwater fee for several years. They recently revised the method of calculating the charge. And will be charging vacent lots which escaped the fee previously.
