trees

srephwed said:

Thank you very much. you are the person I had hoped would see this post. Like I thought it makes no sense but in government it makes perfect sense. Sorry to those that didn't like me putting this in the 2a forum but I wanted a lot of people to see it and get the answer I got. Still seems like a huge waste of money.

Click to expand...

River Mud said:

OK, bear with me. SHA has its own federally mandated runoff reduction requirement under the state of MD's "reduction goal" since SHA owns so much pavement, bridges, garages, etc. that all contribute nasty runoff to the Bay (no fee/tax...it's an unfunded mandate). To make sure that SHA did not cry to Federal Highways (FHwA) about the huge cost of their compliance with the federal mandate, the O'Malley Administration did in fact ask SHA, "Hey how about we just add to the SHA budget to sweeten the issue for you." They did that, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in 2013, and lo and behold, SHA is actually putting the money in the ground. Trees planted, ponds updated with better pollution reduction technology, urban gullies repaired where road runoff blew out the stream 50 years ago, it's all good but expensive stuff.

Click to expand...

traveller said:

I am fully on board with re-doing the runoff management for the road, dry-wells, rain-gardens all that good stuff. What I am not on board is with SHA use of coarse rip-rap in the right of way in a way that turns a minor excursion off the roadway into a totaled car or dead motorcyclist.

Click to expand...

Mr H said:

But, when people sue because the trees in the median were the "cause" of their drunk teen's death , or because someone was hurt due to a vehicle coming across when a driver just HAD to answer a text, these are the sorts of things we end up with.

Hell... there are people who want all the trees in the median of the BW PARKway removed, because they MIGHT be a danger...

Click to expand...

River Mud said:

OK, here are the actual facts - no spin. Ignore the rain tax for a minute. The Bay TMDL "Pollution Diet," which is the federal mandate requiring each state in the watershed to clean up about 25-40% of its water pollution by 2025, is the driving force of all of this. It was finalized in December 2010. EPA fought it in federal court (they really don't want to do all that extra work) and lost. The Farm Bureau fought it in federal court (they don't want farmers to foot the bill) and lost. So there it is. A requirement to get the crap out of the water, literally and figuratively, by 2025.

If it doesn't happen, the federal penalties will start slamming state and county agencies in 2026. Look up "Baltimore Consent Decree" for an eye opener of what that nightmare looks like.

OK, bear with me. SHA has its own federally mandated runoff reduction requirement under the state of MD's "reduction goal" since SHA owns so much pavement, bridges, garages, etc. that all contribute nasty runoff to the Bay (no fee/tax...it's an unfunded mandate). To make sure that SHA did not cry to Federal Highways (FHwA) about the huge cost of their compliance with the federal mandate, the O'Malley Administration did in fact ask SHA, "Hey how about we just add to the SHA budget to sweeten the issue for you." They did that, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in 2013, and lo and behold, SHA is actually putting the money in the ground. Trees planted, ponds updated with better pollution reduction technology, urban gullies repaired where road runoff blew out the stream 50 years ago, it's all good but expensive stuff.

Maintenance, of course, is a real issue. The sun will set on this huge amount of money (this is where the rain tax comes BACK in) and putting "new projects" into the ground. And just as our society has always had a major issue with infrastructure maintenance, each one of these roadside trees, each roadside pond, are "infrastructure." If they die, it means not only that money was wasted, but that the environmental benefits aren't happening (which means more money will have to be spent).

We can argue about the rain tax all day, but is the "rain tax" any different than the county raising your property tax by 1% to get the same money? Ultimately, the feds are demanding that the state of MD (and thus, each county) clean up the creeks and rivers, and you and I are going to pay that bill one way or the other. The EPA has kicked the can down the road for 40 years on the topic, and now they're being held to their own rules, so unfortunately for our tax bill for the next 10 (15?) years, it means our generation gets to pay for it. That's an important thing to understand.

Click to expand...

Jack5j said:

Then why was $1.2bil raided from 4 "Save the Bay" funds and spent? (Just asking if anyone can make sense of that.)

Click to expand...

River Mud said:

That was from the "flush tax" sewer plant upgrade fee. It happened because "someone" needed quick money for "something," and both the Repubs and Democrats refused to enact a "lock box" legislation (which *is* included in the rain tax law..3 years later).

The money from the flush fee *WAS* returned to the fund, I believe within a year, but it caused enormous (very understandable) political damage and taxpayer blowback, and well, they (O'Malley administration) should have expected that. Now they've paid for it politically.

Can't levy new taxes and then use it for "funny money" because it undercuts the idea that the new tax was necessary. That was a huge political miscalculation. We'll be talking about it for another decade.

Click to expand...