We deserve Clean Water Act of 2010

Stormwater is the primary source of pollution in Puget Sound. If this state is going to meet the governor's goal of cleaning up Puget Sound by 2020, projects must be put in place to divert the stormwater or remove the petroleum products, fertilizers and other pollutants from water before it enters the Sound.

The state Department of Ecology is studying stormwater runoff, but officials estimate between 8 million and 55 million pounds of petroleum products reach the Sound via stormwater every year. It’s primarily oil deposited along city streets and parking lots, that collects grime before it’s washed into stormwater drains. From there, it’s a short trip to the saltwater, where it contributes to the degradation of the water quality.

The state has had a modest seven-tenths of 1 percent tax on hazardous materials to pay for stormwater cleanup projects since the Model Toxic Control Act was passed in 1988. The tax generates about $120 million a year for stormwater cleanup. To put that in perspective, stormwater retrofit work in King and Pierce counties alone is pegged at $850 million. But there’s stormwater pollution in the Spokane River in eastern Washington and in communities large and small across the state.

Environmental organizations in Washington state have united behind a proposal in the Legislature to raise the hazardous materials tax to 2 percent, generating an additional $225 million a year for stormwater improvement projects.

It’s a worthwhile proposal that lawmakers should adopt. The tax increase plan got a boost last week when Gov. Chris Gregoire included the proposal in her tax package.

RAIDING THE FUND

We do have one concern. It’s the fact that the governor and legislators have repeatedly raided the hazardous materials account to bail out the state’s general fund. According to Brendon Cechovic, program director for the Washington Environmental Council, the governor and Legislature took $180 million out of the toxics account last year. This year, Cechovic said, the governor’s all-cuts budget robs another $80 million from the toxics account, which would torpedo 13 cleanup projects.

Unfortunately, these fund transfers — in effect robbing from Peter to pay Paul — are largely invisible to the general public.

Cechovic and others supporting the tax increase — the Clean Water Act of 2010 — believe they have partially solved the problem by requiring lawmakers to pass a bill to transfer money out of the toxics account. At least that would raise the visibility of the fund raid and give members of the public an opportunity to object and insist that money collected to combat stormwater pollution be used for that purpose.

Raising the hazardous materials tax is the right thing to do. Environmentalists recognize that stormwater is a huge polluter and have put forward a proposal that would have meaningful results. What’s most appealing is the fact that polluters would pay for cleanup of their mess. It’s not like taxing cigarette smokers to pay for K-12 education proposals. Under the clean water proposal, those poisoning our precious water resources would pay for the cleanup caused by that pollution.

And, yes, that would hit most consumers in their pocketbook. We are, after all, part of the problem. The petroleum products from our vehicles are a direct contributor to the pollution of waterways. Under the tax increase plan, oil industry officials say gas prices would increase 3 to 4 cents a gallon. Given the huge swings in gasoline prices we’ve experienced in this community over the last couple of years, an additional 60 cents or 80 cents to fill up the family vehicle would be largely invisible.

OPPOSITION

Not surprisingly, the oil industry, refinery workers, anti-tax Republicans and business leaders are fighting this tax increase proposal. On the other side is a coalition of environmental groups, labor representatives, Democrats and local government officials pushing the plan. Many city and county officials embrace the near tripling of the hazardous substances tax because they recognize that the only way they are going to make substantial progress in reducing stormwater pollution is to partner with the state to get projects under way.

“If we don’t deal with stormwater, we won’t be able to rescue Puget Sound,” said David Dicks, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency that oversees Puget Sound cleanup.

“This is an unfair, increased tax burden on our company,” said Brent Powers, a 23-year employee of the Anacortes-based Tesero Corp. oil refinery, which he said lost $149 million last year. Given oil company profits in recent years, it’s going to be tough to convince the public that the industry is a victim here.

Like we said, if there’s a drawback to the legislative proposal, it’s the plan to siphon off 69 percent of the tax for the general fund for three years to help reduce the budget shortfall. By 2016, however, all the money would be earmarked for local government stormwater projects, state Department of Transportation highway runoff controls and oil-spill-prevention programs. And before lawmakers could raid the account to pay for other state services, they would have to rewrite the law. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a realistic plan that forces polluters to pay. Lawmakers should pass the Clean Water Act of 2010.