The Issues Facing Maryland

Residential stormwater runoff. Photo © 2010 Krista Schlyer/iLCPA brown river of sediment flows into a storm drain, taking chemicals, oil, and other pollutants from streets and yards with it. Photo © 2010 Krista Schlyer/iLCP 

The Facts About Polluted Runoff and Maryland's Stormwater Utility Fees

Did you know that the only source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed that is still increasing is polluted runoff?

Q: What is stormwater/polluted runoff?
Q: Why has urban and suburban polluted runoff emerged as a national issue?
Q: Why has polluted runoff become a big issue in Maryland specifically?
Q: What is the Stormwater Utility Fee?
Q: Where did this fee come from? I knew nothing about it.
Q: If we already pay taxes, why does the government need to charge additional fees to restore the Bay?
Q: Why do we need a new fee? We already pay the Bay Restoration Fee ("flush tax").
Q: Why aren't other local governments beside mine included in those that must charge a fee?
Q: Am I being charged the same amount as other property owners with more pavement or hard surfaces?
Q: What about the assertion that these fees are a tax on rain (or a "rain tax")?
Q: What about the complaint that these fees represent a top-down mandate?
Q: Are the fees used locally?
Q: Why are all the fees different?
Q: Does the Chesapeake Bay Foundation receive funding from the "rain tax?"
Q: Can I have my fee reduced? I've heard some of the 10 jurisdictions are offering discounts.
Q: Don't we have bigger pollution problems to worry about? Isn't the water pollution that causes closed beaches and unsafe swim areas caused mostly by sewage spills, not polluted runoff?
Q: Do the fees hurt Maryland's business competitiveness?

Q: What is stormwater/polluted runoff?

A: As water flows off of our streets, parking lots, and building rooftops, it picks up fertilizers, pesticides, oil, and automotive fluids, pet waste, sediment, and other pollutants. This simple process—untreated stormwater flowing through gutters and storm drains—pollutes our rivers and streams and threatens our drinking water. It also causes problems like local flooding of streets and homes, beach closures, fish advisories, and sewage system overflows.

Q: Why has urban and suburban polluted runoff emerged as a national issue?

A: Up until about the 1980s, builders didn’t know much about the problems associated with polluted runoff. They just designed developments to flush the water off the property quickly. Now we realize runoff should be slowed down, and soaked up, where possible.

In fact, in the Chesapeake Bay region, this sort of pollution is the only major pollution sector still on the rise. Air pollution is down, as is pollution from wastewater treatment plants and agriculture. Urban and suburban runoff is the last nut to crack.

Q: Why has polluted runoff become a big issue in Maryland specifically?

A: Maryland's cities and suburban areas contain some of the highest concentrations of impervious surfaces in the whole Chesapeake Bay watershed. And, not surprisingly, the state also has a huge list of waterways that are officially considered polluted. In fact, the "impaired waters" list includes waterways in every county in the state. Damage from this pollution to the Chesapeake Bay is also dramatic, because Maryland's concentrated areas of urban and suburban development are close in proximity to the Bay compared to urbanized areas in most of Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint requires each of the Bay states to reduce pollution or be subject to consequences for failure. But polluted runoff has ramifications far beyond the health of the Bay. This pollution damages local rivers and streams, is often responsible for expensive flooding, and, especially after a significant rainfall, can put human health at risk.

Q: What is the Stormwater Utility Fee?

A: In 2012, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 987, the Watershed Protection and Restoration Program. This legislation required the 10 largest and most urban jurisdictions to set fees to address their polluted runoff problems.  These 10 urban areas have the most land that doesn't allow water to filter slowly (impervious area), and they are also the only jurisdictions in Maryland charged with meeting very strict federal Clean Water Act permits. At the request of the Maryland Association of Counties, the law allowed localities to set a fee at whatever level they wished, based on their needs.

Q: Where did this fee come from? I knew nothing about it.

A: HB 987 was debated in the Maryland General Assembly in 2012. The media reported the debate. Also, nearly identical bills were debated in previous sessions of the legislature and reported by the media. Some counties and municipalities have been holding similar debates for several years as they tried to find a way to finance the upgrade of their neglected and outdated stormwater systems.

Some counties and municipalities have had similar fees in place for decades. For example, Prince George's County has assessed a tax for polluted runoff since 1986. Bowie has charged commercial properties a fee to address polluted runoff since 1988. A number of other areas implemented similar fees in the 1990s and 2000s.

Q: If we already pay taxes, why does the government need to charge additional fees to restore the Bay?

A: With all the challenges they face, state and local governments have generally chosen to do the minimum required to reduce polluted runoff. HB 987 gave a nudge to local governments to act, but left it up to them to determine the size of their local fee. With an adequate fee, the local government can implement practical, proven solutions that were previously too expensive, or that could have only been done if money was taken from other important social services. The fee also provides important leverage for financing projects with bonds or state revolving loans. Regardless of financing option, local creeks and rivers will get cleaner only to the degree local officials fund needed work. Little or no new funding will continue to mean dirty, unhealthy local waters.

Q: Why do we need a new fee? We already pay the Bay Restoration Fee ("flush tax").

A: The Bay Restoration Fund or "flush tax" money goes to upgrading sewage plants. The money is being well spent. Most major plants in the state have been upgraded or are being upgraded, reducing nitrogen pollution into local waters by more than six million pounds a year. The flush tax was doubled in 2012 to finish the job of upgrading sewage plants. The stormwater fee goes to upgrade the stormwater system—the ponds, pipes, gutters, and other structures that are supposed to channel and treat polluted runoff before it reaches creeks. That spending will provide substantial, additional pollution reductions in each community.

Q: Why aren't other local governments beside mine included in those that must charge a fee?

A: The problem is most severe in the 10 jurisdictions that were mandated to charge some level of fee, due to the large amount of impervious surface in those areas. And those are the only local jurisdictions already required by detailed Clean Water Act permits to deal with this problem. Many other counties in Maryland that are more rural don't discharge as much polluted runoff into local creeks and rivers.

Q: Am I being charged the same amount as other property owners with more pavement or hard surfaces?

A: Each of the 10 local governments was given complete freedom to decide not only the size of the fee, but how it was collected. Some opted to charge property owners with more "impervious surfaces" higher fees. Other jurisdictions opted for a "flat fee." The ten jurisdictions took different approaches.  Find more information here about your jurisdiction's approach, or contact your local government for even more detailed information.

Q: What about the assertion that these fees are a tax on rain (or a "rain tax")?

A: That moniker is catchy but blatantly false. It is designed to mislead and confuse. The truth is that we are talking about a fee to reduce pollution from water that washes off hard surfaces and empties into local waterways. Runoff pollution is real—it is responsible for no-swimming advisories and beach closures in local waters, fish consumption advisories, and dead zones in the Bay that can't support aquatic life. It also causes localized flooding and property damage. And in many areas, it is the largest source of pollution.

The bottom line is that this work must be done. There are federal and state requirements to reduce runoff pollution from urban and suburban areas. A fee on impervious surface is the best model to do this because the fee is connected to the cause of the pollution. If counties don't implement stormwater fees, they will need to raise the revenue by other means, such as property taxes or income taxes.

Q: What about the complaint that these fees represent a top-down mandate?

A: It is true that the General Assembly required the fee. But the General Assembly also gave the counties the flexibility to design a fee structure that meets our unique needs. This is not a "one size fits all" policy. Counties have the leeway to develop local policies to address their local runoff pollution problems.

Q: Are the fees used locally?

A: Yes! The fees are collected by the county or city, and used only in the county or city that collects them, to fix polluted runoff problems. The money will never go into a state fund, and there is accountability and transparency.

The fee are used for simple, proven solutions that work by slowing down and absorbing much of the polluted runoff. These solutions include planting trees, planting vegetation around streams, restoring stream beds, and using rain barrels and rain gardens. These local projects not only reduce pollution and improve water quality, but also make our communities more beautiful, reduce flooding, and create jobs. Scientific monitoring will verify that the projects are effective and efficient.

Q: Why are all the fees different?

A: Each county and city is unique, and so are their water quality problems. The Maryland Association of Counties, a non-profit association representing the needs of local government to the Maryland General Assembly, requested that the state law provide flexibility that allowed each jurisdiction to address these differences. Each county or city therefore can set its own fee. The approach taken by each county has varied, but the approach that provides the greatest benefit to local communities is setting a fee that reflects the jurisdiction’s estimated cost of compliance with Clean Water Act permits and cost of restoring local streams and rivers. Despite the amount of work needed to restore Maryland's rivers and streams, Maryland's polluted runoff fees are lower than those in quite a few other states.

Q: Does the Chesapeake Bay Foundation receive funding from the "rain tax?"

A: Absolutely not. Neither do we receive a penny of funding from the Bay Restoration Fund, or "flush fee." These are government initiatives. We are a non-profit, private agency.

Q: Can I have my fee reduced? I've heard some of the 10 jurisdictions are offering discounts.

A: HB987 required all of the 10 local governments affected to offer some type of credits or discounts if a property owner takes steps to reduce polluted runoff from his land. Find more information here, or contact your local government.

Q: Don't we have bigger pollution problems to worry about? Isn't the water pollution that causes closed beaches and unsafe swim areas caused mostly by sewage spills, not polluted runoff?

A: Polluted runoff from city and suburban landscapes is the only major type of water pollution that is increasing in the region. Pollution from farms, sewage plants, and other sources is decreasing. Thanks to the "flush fee," for example, we've dramatically reduced nitrogen pollution from sewage plants. A handful of sewer systems in the state are so old it will take many years more to stop recurring spills and overflows. Spills from those systems can play a major role in beach closings. But Sally Hornor, a microbiologist with Anne Arundel Community College who has tested county water for years, says bacteria from polluted runoff is the culprit in unsafe swim areas far more often. Sewage spills are occasional. Polluted runoff occurs after every storm generating about one-half inch of rain or more.

Q: Do the fees hurt Maryland's business competitiveness?

A: Forward-thinking community leaders believe the benefit to communities from addressing polluted runoff far outweigh the speculative concern that businesses will relocate. And if businesses consider relocating to Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Virginia instead of Maryland, they might be surprised to learn that 18 local jurisdictions in Virginia, eight local governments in West Virginia, at least two municipalities in Delaware (including the largest, Wilmington), and several in Pennsylvania already have stormwater fee systems in place—and these numbers are growing. Nationwide, more than 1,400 jurisdictions—including large cities like Houston and Tampa—have similar policies in place—and they are working.

Photo courtesy NRCSPhoto courtesy NRCS

Senate Bill 1029—The Maryland Agricultural Certainty Program

More Pollution Reduction, Sooner, Cheaper

One of several major bills passed by the 2013 Maryland Legislative General Assembly and supported by CBF was SB1029, the "Maryland Agricultural Certainty Program." The bill offers farmers who voluntarily meet 2025 water quality goals now (12 years ahead of schedule) flexibility when they meet any potential new laws and regulations. The program offers certainty that farmers are actually reducing pollution on their farms, and also gives farmers business certainty once they meet all water quality standards.

Read more

(left to right) Pam Abramson and Amy Reyes of RALE (Residents Against Landsdale Expansion) at the future site of an 1,100 new home subdivision in Frederick County. Photo by Tom Pelton/CBF Staff(left to right) Pam Abramson and Amy Reyes of RALE (Residents Against Landsdale Expansion) at the future site of an 1,100 new home subdivision in Frederick County. Photo by Tom Pelton/CBF Staff

Some Counties Are Working Hard to Implement Maryland's New Anti-Sprawl Law; Others are Not

By enacting the Sustainable Growth & Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012, the state Administration and Maryland General Assembly took a critical step forward in protecting our waters, open spaces, and rural agricultural economy from the impacts of harmful sprawl. This new law, which took effect on July 1, 2012, seeks greater accountability and predictability by encouraging counties to map future growth into categorical "tiers." Counties were to adopt "tier maps” for future growth by December 31, 2012 or face limits on new growth outside areas with existing sewers.

Many localities are working hard to implement the law. Unfortunately, a few counties appear to be falling short of the law and are putting our waterways and rural lands at risk. Some counties, such as Frederick and Cecil, have adopted maps that do not measure up to the standards in the law, according to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). As a result, these maps do not adequately protect our waters and rural lands from overdevelopment.

Below you will find a map of the "Septics Law" adoption status by county.

Map: Maryland septic law adoption by county. Source: Maryland Department of Planning

Click to view larger

It isn't fair to saddle existing residents and businesses with the substantial costs of cleaning up new pollution from harmful sprawl. We are making progress in reducing pollution to the Bay. Development is the only major pollution source on the increase. It is only fair—and sensible—to target new growth where it will pollute less.

Maryland's General Assembly is in session now. The state legislature must stand firm and reject attempts to scuttle or weaken the law, which is critical to the success of the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.

For more information visit the Maryland Department of Planning website.


Sparrows Point   Copyright Garth Lens/iLCPCBF filed a lawsuit in 2010 seeking a full investigation and cleanup of pollution at the Sparrows Point steel mill in Baltimore, Maryland. © 2010 Garth Lens/iLCP

Lawsuit Filed Over Sparrows Point Pollution

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Baltimore Harbor WATERKEEPER (WATERKEEPER), filed a lawsuit Friday, July 9, 2010 against the current and former owners of the Sparrows Point steel plant, which has illegally discharged hazardous waste for decades. The complaint, filed in federal court and joined by several local residents, seeks a full investigation and cleanup of pollution. The plaintiffs are concerned for the health of neighbors of the plant, as well as the environment of Bear Creek and the Patapsco River.

Find out the status of the case in CBF's list of Active Cases.

Sparrows Point Areas of Interest

Sparrow's Point - Areas of InterestClick for larger image

Grey's Landfill - Select Groundwater Contaminants

Grey's Landfill - Select Groundwater ContaminantsClick for larger image

Coke Point Landfill - Select Groundwater Contaminants

Coke Point Landfill - Select Groundwater ContaminantsClick for larger image

Sediment Testing

Sediment Testing in Bear CreekClick for larger image,

"This plant has released toxic chemicals into waters where people live, swim, and fish, day after day, year after year," said CBF President William C. Baker. "It's time to draw a line in the sand.  Our lawsuit will petition the court to require the company to stop this pollution, and to do a full assessment of the risks to human health and the environment."

"The surrounding communities have unfairly suffered pollution for years from this site. Studies point to the extensive contamination of the river, yet Severstal has shown no intention of cleaning up their pollution.  That is unacceptable" said Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper, Eliza Steinmeier. "We, the people, own this river and nobody—including Severstal or previous owners of the site—has a right to contaminate our river."

The complaint charges the current owner of the plant, Severstal N/A, and previous owner ArcelorMittal, with generating, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste at the site without a permit, and continuing to do so in violation of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and of state laws. The wastes, including benzene, chromium, lead, naphthalene, and zinc, have been found in Bear Creek and the Patapsco River. The chemicals could present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.

Contamination at the plant and in sediments surrounding the facility has been well documented. At one location, benzene, a human carcinogen, has been found in groundwater at levels 100,000 times the government's Maximum Contaminant Levels-concentrations. Sediments from some areas surrounding the facility are toxic to aquatic organisms. In addition, concentrations of some contaminants in sediments and groundwater exceed screening levels for human health.

Andrew Fan, EPA Project Coordinator for Sparrows Point, told a community gathering June 24 that one major source of offsite pollution at the mill, an underground hydrocarbon plume flowing into Bear Creek, is much like the light crude oil spill in the Gulf.

At issue is what's to be done. In May, 2009, CBF and the Harborkeeper filed a Notice of Intent to sue. Since then, federal and state agencies pushed Severstal toward a cleanup, but Severstal resisted a full off-site assessment and cleanup. That is unacceptable. Residents live all along Bear Creek, and often swim, fish, and crab in waters where the sediment is highly toxic in places.

"It's gotten to the point people are afraid to get in the water," said Will Strong, a resident and co-plaintiff who lives on Bear Creek. He said one of his neighbors recently fell in the water and immediately stripped off all his clothes, not knowing to what harm he might be exposed."

"Residents need to know whether Bear Creek and the Patapsco River are safe. No one should have to wait so many years for a risk assessment. A full investigation should begin immediately, and any necessary remediation should follow," said Dr. Beth McGee, CBF Senior Water Quality Scientist.

Nearly a century of industrial activities at the Sparrows Point Industrial Complex has left behind a legacy of toxic contamination that rivals many Superfund sites. The original owner, Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), operated on the roughly 2,300 acre site for more than 80 years, making iron and steel and building ships.

In the late 90's, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) sued BSC for numerous hazardous waste violations. As a result, in 1997 a Consent Decree was issued that stipulated various cleanup and assessment requirements. The terms of the Consent Decree have not fully been met.

A Luxemburg steel company, ArcelorMittal, acquired Sparrows Point on June 26, 2006. A Russian steel company, Severstal, acquired ownership of the majority of the Sparrows Point complex on April 14, 2008. Both companies accepted responsibility for existing pollution at the site when they purchased the property. 
Severstal has made some progress after CBF and the Harborkeeper threatened a lawsuit in 2009, and after EPA and MDE increased enforcement of the Consent Decree. Severstal is expected, for instance, to begin preliminary cleanup in the coming months of the hydrocarbon plume at Coke Point section of the plant. But the steps do not go far enough. Severstal has challenged its legal obligation to investigate contamination that has migrated beyond the plant's borders, and disputed EPA and MDE’s authority to require the company to undertake such an assessment. CBF and the Harborkeeper believe legal pressure is necessary to prompt full and speedy corrective action.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Severstal and ArcelorMittal to fully investigate offsite contamination, take emergency measures to more fully prevent pollution leaving the facility, and to remove and remediate off-site contamination, among other measures.

A cleaner Bear Creek and Patapsco River could improve the health and welfare of Dundalk residents. Habitat will improve for fish, crabs, and other wildlife in the water. The area will become more attractive to residents, visitors, and business customers. Several business owners are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
"My frustration is I want this river cleaned up," said Strong, who has lived on Bear Creek for most of his life and within the past few weeks watched peeler crabs die after "dark water" rolled through. "I've seen some good times but these are really getting to be bad times."



Farm fields. Photo courtesy NRCS MarylandWhat role do farms and agricultural production play in the health of our waters? Learn more

Chemical Contamination

An osprey in its nest in the James River right next to a chemical plant. Photo © Krista Schlyer/iLCP.Toxic chemicals are entering our waters every day. What can we do about them? Learn more

Land Use

Sprawl development. Photo copyright Nikki DavisWhen the watershed's land summers from pollution and poor management so, too, does the water. Learn how

Sewage & Septic Systems

Easton Utilities sewage treatment plant. Photo courtesy City of EastonUpgrading wastewater treatment is key to cleaning up the Bay. Learn more

Polluted Runoff

Residential stormwater runoff. Photo copyright 2010 Krista Schlyer/iLCPDid you know that stormwater runoff is the fastest growing source of Bay pollution? Learn more

Find out what other issues are affecting the health of the Bay. >>

You will begin to receive Bay updates from CBF soon.

In the meantime, join the Bay-friendly conversation on Facebook and Twitter!

Questions that require an answer are marked with  *
* Please take a moment to provide the following information so that we may keep you updated on issues and events near you.
 E-Mail Address
 First Name
 Last Name
 Zip Code
* Timestamp

21 States Against A Clean Chesapeake

Goal: 75,000 signers!


1-888-SAVEBAY / 1-888-728-3229

BBB Accredited Charity
GuideStar Exchange Gold Participant Seal

Bids & ProposalsPrivacy Policy

© 2014 Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
All Rights Reserved.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is a nonprofit,
tax-exempt charitable organization under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Donations are tax-deductible as allowed by law.