Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Montgomery County Should Appeal Stormwater Case

Last Wednesday, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge held that the Montgomery County Water Quality Protection Charge is invalid and that the plaintiff should not have been required to pay any stormwater fee to the county. The case could have significant ramifications across the state for jurisdictions that have, like Montgomery County, established a stormwater fee similar to the one invalidated in the case.

First, some background.  In 2012, the Maryland General Assembly passed HB 987, which required any jurisdiction subject to a certain federal stormwater permit (including, for example, Baltimore City and Prince George’s County) to implement an annual stormwater remediation fee and a local watershed protection and restoration fund to hold those new funds. The law did not require the local governments to set the fee at any specific level or otherwise require them to collect a specified amount in revenues; each jurisdiction had discretion in setting the local stormwater remediation fee. 

Interestingly, Montgomery County had established its Water Quality Protection Charge long before the Maryland General Assembly acted in 2012 and was well on its way to using the newly collected funds to support the development of green infrastructure throughout the county.  Subsequently, Montgomery decided to update its local laws to comply with the provisions of the new law, although it could have decided not to, as the local charge was authorized under a much older section of law that authorized but did not require such local fees. 

And that’s where the first big question about the impact of this case comes in.  This past session, the Maryland General Assembly passed a new law, signed by Governor Hogan, that repealed the requirement for the 10 largest municipal governments to charge a stormwater fee, but which maintained the requirement for these jurisdictions to fully fund their stormwater obligations.  In this new law, the General Assembly also repealed the applicability of the law to Montgomery County, and decided to treat the county separately, under the different and older section of the state code.  Thus, Montgomery County is no longer required to comply with the state law at issue in this case.  However, the trouble is that Montgomery County is required under the new law to comply with many of the same provisions analyzed in the case. 

There are two separate provisions at issue, which together, essentially require a local stormwater fee to be set based on the stormwater services being provided to the property owner by the county.    The first of these provisions guides how a fee must be set, and the second requires jurisdictions to establish credits for properties that have their own stormwater facilities or activities.  The plaintiff sued because he has stormwater drainage ponds on his property and argued that, not only should he receive a credit for that, but he should not be charged at all.  The judge agreed, emphasizing that a fee must be reasonably connected to the county’s actual stormwater management. 

If the county appeals, it will likely focus on the significant ambiguity in these provisions, as well as the total lack of deference that the court provided to the agency in this case.  The judge reasoned that the law is new, that Montgomery County has very little experience interpreting it, and, therefore, its interpretation should be entitled to very little deference.  As noted, Montgomery County had established its stormwater fee long before the state required it, and the county fee was in some ways a template for the state fee.  Further, the county needed to change its law very little to conform to the state law in 2013.  Additionally, many other jurisdictions in Maryland have established their fees under the same interpretation of these provisions.  Finally, if appealed, the Court of Special Appeals will likely take a hard look at whether the case was as cut and dried, as the circuit court judge seemed to think.  The provisions cited refer generally to the principle that a fee should be based on the stormwater management services provided and that credits should be provided for those who undertake stormwater management activities on their own; of this, there is little question (otherwise it’s more like a tax, less like a fee).

But most jurisdictions impose a cap on the amount of a credit (or even establish two fees – one of which cannot be offset by credits) in recognition that there are overhead costs associated with running a stormwater utility or division that should not be totally eliminated.Montgomery County should also appeal the case because of the substantial amount of revenues at stake (principally, from commercial or industrial properties) and the importance of those revenues to achieving the county’s clean water goals and compliance with the total maximum daily load or “pollution diet” for the Chesapeake Bay.  Stormwater is the most intractable problem facing Bay restoration efforts, both in Maryland and throughout the watershed as a whole.  And stormwater fees are the cornerstone of new efforts to turn that problem around. 

Showing 2,818 results

Evan Isaacson | July 27, 2015

Montgomery County Should Appeal Stormwater Case

Last Wednesday, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge held that the Montgomery County Water Quality Protection Charge is invalid and that the plaintiff should not have been required to pay any stormwater fee to the county. The case could have significant ramifications across the state for jurisdictions that have, like Montgomery County, established a stormwater […]

James Goodwin | July 22, 2015

The SBA Office of Advocacy . . . Taxpayer Funded Lobbyist for Berkshire Hathaway?

When it commenced on June 1, OIRA’s review of the EPA’s draft final rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants launched a flurry of lobbying activity among a veritable who’s who of America’s largest fossil fuel polluters.   In just over six weeks, the White House’s antiregulatory shop has presided over no less […]

Rena Steinzor | July 16, 2015

Kill a Worker? You’re Not a Criminal. Steal a Worker’s Pay? You Are One.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez came into office pledging to create good jobs and take on the economic injustice that oppresses blue-collar workers, from raising the minimum wage and restoring unpaid overtime to combatting wage theft. Luckily, the head of his Wage and Hour Division, David Weil, the author of a revelatory report on how to […]

Erin Kesler | July 16, 2015

CPR Scholars Submit Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Case FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association

Today, CPR Member Scholars, with a larger group of law professors, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) v. Electric Power Supply Association. The professors submitted the brief because, “they believe that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made serious errors when it held that […]

James Goodwin | July 15, 2015

The Real Nine Most Terrifying Words in the English Language

“I’m Republican, and I want to do regulatory reform.”  Whether they’ve uttered that exact nine-word phrase or not, virtually every Republican on Capitol Hill has enthusiastically endorsed the sentiment it expresses at some point—if not on a near-daily basis—during the last few years.  Who could blame them?  The unshakable conviction that our regulatory system is […]

Matt Shudtz | July 14, 2015

Join Us for a Discussion of Rena Steinzor’s Book, ‘Why Not Jail?’

Public Citizen to host discussion of CPR Member Scholar Rena Steinzor’s new book, “Why Not Jail?  Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction.”  On Monday, July 20, 2015 Public Citizen, the Center for Progressive Reform and the Bauman Foundation will lead a discussion focused on CPR’s immediate past president and University of Maryland Law School […]

Amy Sinden | July 13, 2015

Supreme Court’s Mercury Decision Did Not Usher in Sunstein’s ‘Cost-Benefit State’

In Michigan v. EPA, handed down two weeks ago, the Supreme Court waded into the decades-long debate over the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in agency rulemaking.   The decision struck down EPA’s limits on mercury emissions from power plants for the agency’s failure to consider costs, and so appears, superficially at least, like a win […]

Erin Kesler | July 9, 2015

New CPR Issue Alert: Earmarking Away the Public Interest

House GOP’s “Negative Earmarks” in Appropriations Bill Would Undercut Key Protections and Cost Thousands of Lives Today, the Center for Progressive Reform released a new Issue Alert, “Earmarking Away the Public Interest: How Congressional Republicans Use Antiregulatory Appropriations Riders to Benefit Powerful Polluting Industries.” The report, by CPR Member Scholars Thomas O. McGarity of the […]

Katie Tracy | July 7, 2015

With Right to Marry, Same-Sex Spouses Now Eligible for Hundreds of Employment Benefits

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 26 recognizing same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry is a significant, albeit long overdue, civil rights victory for the LGBT community and for our nation.  You don’t have to look any further than the long list of benefits available only to married couples to see how denying same-sex couples […]