In addition to ACCG and GAWP, this bill is also opposed by the Georgia Water Coalition (GWC), including WWALS. Below are talking points from the ACCG website. Please contact your Georgia state legislators.

Please Oppose House Bill 316
Association County Commissioners of Georgia
Georgia Association of Water Professionals

House Bill 316 would exempt state government entities from paying local government stormwater utility charges. While specifically using the word “charges”, the proposed exemption appears to presume that the stormwater utility fee is a tax and not a fee for services. In presenting and promoting the bill, proponents may refer to these fees as a “rain tax”. However, in 2004, the Georgia Supreme Court specifically ruled in McLeod v. Columbia County that stormwater utility charges are, in fact, a fee for services, and not a tax. The State is exempt from taxes, but there is no legal or logical basis for the State to exempt itself from paying valid fees for actual services rendered.

Implications of HB 316: Notwithstanding the threshold issue of legality, this bill could have extremely far-reaching implications. If the General Assembly exempts State government from paying fees for stormwater services, would they also exempt State government from paying local water and sewer fees? If they did that, would they then exempt the State from paying for any services provided by local government? What about purchase of goods? The implications of this bill are staggering.

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division is charged with responsibility for implementation of the federal Clean Water Act and the Georgia Water Quality Control Act. In its most recent biennial report on the status of Georgia’s water resources (“Water Quality in Georgia 2006-2007”), EPD summarizes the water quality problems facing Georgia as follows:

The pollution impact on Georgia streams has radically shifted over the last two decades. Streams are no longer dominated by untreated or partially treated sewage discharges which resulted in little or no oxygen and little or no aquatic life. The sewage is now treated, oxygen levels have returned and fish have followed. However, another source of pollution is now affecting Georgia streams. That source is referred to as nonpoint and consists of mud, litter, bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, metals, oils, detergents and a variety of other pollutants being washed into rivers and lakes by stormwater. Even stormwater runoff itself, if rate and volume is unmitigated, can be extremely detrimental to aquatic habitat and hydrologic systems. Nonpoint source pollution, although somewhat less dramatic than raw sewage, must be reduced and controlled to fully protect Georgia’s streams.

EPD has charged local government with the responsibility of managing stormwater to achieve the State’s water quality standards. There is virtually no funding available from State or federal government to assist local governments in carrying out this charge. Thus, local governments have been forced to develop local financing mechanisms to provide revenue sources to carry out this responsibility. Allowing a major contributor to the problem to be exempted from participating in paying for this service would be grossly unfair to the local government and to the remainder of the community.

It should be noted that State government has perhaps a greater effect on Georgia’s water resources resulting from stormwater than any other sector. Stormwater runoff from State and federal highways contributes greatly to Georgia’s water quality problems. More significantly, the Georgia Department of Transportation’s construction projects have historically been one of the greatest contributors to soil erosion and sedimentation in our lakes and streams. Most stormwater fee systems that we are aware of do not include fees for roadways, so the State is already getting an enormous break on these fees. State government should be a role model for stormwater management rather than seeking exemptions from paying fees for a necessary service provided by local government and mandated by the State.

State Water Plan: Lastly, the Statewide Water Management Plan (page 32, item (1)(b)) specifically encourages local governments to adopt stormwater utilities as a means for “funding the administration, operations and maintenance, and capital costs of stormwater and non-point source pollution controls”. As the state is turning to local governments to implement measures to protect state waters, we believe, again, that Georgia would be sending a bad message by exempting itself from funding its part.

In Summary:

• The whole point of the Clean Water Act and all of the billions of dollars spent to abate water pollution since the l960s was to have “fishable and swimmable” waters;
• At the present time, many of the surface waters in Georgia do not meet the standards for fishing and swimming. The State of Georgia established these standards;
• Wastewater treatment (POTW) plants almost always meet the criteria in their discharge permits;
• If the discharges from the POTW are meeting their permit criteria, stormwater must be the sources of the pollutants that cause surface waters to be unsuitable for fishing and swimming;
• All of the polluters who contribute to pollution should bear a pro-rata share of the cost of abating pollution;

  Stormwater utilities are new. In the past, stormwater services were paid out of local governments’ general funds;

• But, things have changed: almost every city and county must have a permit for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, (the “MS4”) which is analogous to the wastewater discharge (NPDES) permits for the POTW;
• And, the POTW permits now require local governments to develop, fund and construct watershed improvement projects as a condition of operating the POTW;
• Thus, a stormwater utility is essential as a funding mechanism to ensure that every landowner who sends polluted stormwater runoff into the MS4 pays for the services that are provided;
• Most local government stormwater ordinance base the service fee on the amount of impervious area on the customer’s property: any land that contains impervious surface area contributes pollution to the MS4;
• Customers who have more impervious area pay a higher fee than customers whose land has less impervious area.
• Utility charges are a fact of life: electricity, gas, water, sewer, phone and cable charges affect everyone. Why should stormwater utility fees be any different?
• Many local governments have made a policy decision to impose a stormwater utility service fee on every parcel of property within their jurisdiction, whether or not this property was owned by the federal, state, county or municipal government, public or private schools, non-profits, businesses or homeowners.
• If, as a matter of policy, some polluters, for example federal agencies which insists that the stormwater fee is a tax, or state agencies, by adopting HB 316, are exempted from the fee, what happens?
• The stormwater from the impervious area on property that has been exempted from the fee will continue to enter the MS4;
• But the cost of abating the pollution from these properties will be spread among the other property and homeowners, who are paying for the services that they receive and paying for the services provided to the owners of the exempted properties.