Rain water tax
 

City eyes rain water tax

July 23, 2009
Nicole MacIntyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/605590

Hamilton is looking to tax rain water — but it won’t be Mother Nature getting the bill.

Instead, the city wants to target expansive parking lots and big box stores that send storm water rushing into the sewers without helping to pay for treatment costs.

“It’s all about fairness,” explains Jim Harnum, head of the city’s water and waste water department.

“We’re trying to shift responsibility.”

For several years homeowners have seen their water consumption decline, largely because of increased rain, but their bills continue to rise.

That’s because the city still has to spend millions to treatment storm water that runs into the combined sewer system.

No surprise that they would frame it as a 'rain water tax', as opposed to what it really is: a big box parking lot run-off tax. I'd like to give Nicole the benefit of the doubt, so let's say that it's the editors who are the massive weasels.

City's goal is fairness with rain water tax

July 24, 2009
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator


Hamilton is looking to tax rain water -- but it won't be Mother Nature getting the bill.

Instead, the city wants to target expansive parking lots and big box stores that send storm water rushing into the sewers without helping to pay for treatment costs.

"It's all about fairness," explains Jim Harnum, head of the city's water and waste water department.

"We're trying to shift responsibility."

For several years, homeowners have seen their water consumption decline, due to increased rain to keep lawns green and conservation, but their bills continue to rise.

That's because the city still has to spend millions to treat storm water that runs into the combined sewers.

"When it rains, it actually costs the city more money," said Harnum, noting six of eight pumps were running at the plant yesterday, twice as much as on a dry day.

After years of watching its water revenue drop -- residential consumption is down 11 per cent or $750,000 this year already -- Harnum said the city knew it had to review who pays for what.

If rain water is driving costs up, it's only fair that properties that contribute to runoff because of large roofs or impermeable parking lots pay for the cost, said Harnum.

"They are getting service that the homeowner is paying for."

The fee, if approved, will likely mean a few dollars extra for homeowners, but hundreds more for commercial operations. In some cases, like parking lots, owners aren't paying anything toward the city's water works.

The storm water fee would be based on the property's size and its ability to absorb rain water. A home with a lawn sends far less water into the sewer system than a paved lot, said Harnum.

The city would offer discounts to properties that invest in green roofs, storm water management ponds and permeable parking lots.

Storm water fees are common in the U.S. but only a handful of Canadian municipalities have adopted the tax. Edmonton approved a land drainage fee in 2002.

The western city had struggled for years to fund its water infrastructure. New pipes and sewers were always being passed over for projects such as recreation centres, said Sid Lodewyk, general supervisor of environmental monitoring.

"It was always losing."

The new fee helped fund infrastructure while also spreading the cost more equitably, he said.

The program was complicated to start and faced some push-back, but is running well now, added Lodewyk.

"There's no real controversy anymore."

Hamilton plans to hold public consultation on its proposal in the fall. A formal recommendation will come to council before the new year with hopes on implementing the program in 2010.

Let's keep in mind our civic leaders (leaders in air quotes) voted against a green roof at City Hall. Nothing like providing great leadership (air quotes again).

They voted down turning the entire roof as a green roof. A section of the roof will be a green roof at City Hall.

So if the cost is being spread more equitably, why is it that the homeowner will still end up paying more than he/she does now? A rhetorical question, I know.

this sounds like a pretty good idea to me

There needs to be harmonization between departments on this item. One department requires a minimum count of parking spots for a commercial development, then another department wants to penalize you for the runoff caused by the parking lots required by the other department :koko:

I think theyre talking about parking lots that far exceed the minimum.

It's just a staff proposal, I can't see it ever being passed by council. I can't see the courts allowing something like this either. If they did then that would open up extra taxation for people with paved driveways and even patios. It wouldn't go over to well with homeowners.

But I do like the idea. I can see lots of new developements being built with runoff ponds on site. Nice mosquito breeding grounds. The neighbors should love that.

I don't think many developers build oversized parking lots, it's a waste of valuable land. They only put in enough to satisfy bylaw requirements. A good example would be the redevelopement of the Mountain Plaza Mall. The developers actually wanted to reduce the number of parking spaces available and city staff tried to prevent that from happening. The result was city council stepped in and allowed the reduction.

Well there is a bylaw that a homeowner has to keep 50%, or more landscaped.

So I guess one could ask why developments don't have something similar. Call it a tax, or a reward for developing 'green', whatever......

I've never heard of such a bylaw, and if there is they certainly don't enforce it. If they did I'd be in trouble since only about 25% on my property is landscaped. The rest is either pavement , interlocking stone or house and garage. My backyard is all pool and interlocking stone with a drain in the middle, hooked up to the sewers. The pool and fences were done with a city permit and inspected by a city inspector with the patio in place. Nothing was said about having to have 50% landscaped.

This could be done well; this could be done very badly.

It pertains more to your front yard, I believe - there's a ton of illegal driveways put in, but if you apply for a driveway that will make your front yard less than 50% landscaped, you need to apply for a zoning variance.

If thats the case then I am okay, all my grass and gardens are in the front.

If timing is everything, then the timing of this seems to be perfect.

the RHVP would be a cash cow