City to tax rainwater

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Doglips, Aug 30, 2002.

  1. Doglips

    Doglips Guest

    I thought this was a joke artical until I read these polaticians are getting crative in the ways they come up with to take our $$$$....guess air ans sex tax are next.....kinda scary if this passes....

    Last updated on Thu Aug 22 23:23:52 CDT 2002

    City to tax rainwater
    By Jerome Christenson / Winona Daily News

    Starting next year, rainwater will no longer be free in the city of Winona.

    While it hasn't figured out how to tax air or sex, beginning in 2003 the Winona City Council will charge city property owners for the rain that falls on their land.

    As part of the 2003 budget process, the council gave tentative approval to the creation of a $200,000 stormwater fund. The money will be generated by a charge, similar to water and sewer charges, billed to owners of property that drains into the city storm sewer system.

    The stormwater fund was discussed by council and staff Monday night.

    The new city fee comes compliments of the federal government, according to city manager Eric Sorensen. As part of an effort to control nonpoint source water pollution from runoff, the federal government is looking at putting water-quality standards on the discharge from city storm sewers. Runoff from lawns, streets and parking lots can carry a wide range of contaminants, including dog droppings, lawn chemicals, fertilizers, gasoline, oil and an assortment of litter.

    Public works director Keith Nelson said that while the regulations haven't been formulated yet, one thing is safe to assume: "It's going to cost money." Establishing a stormwater fund at this time offers the city a degree of protection from the financial shocks that are likely to result from federal actions.

    Nelson said fees will be based on a complex formula that factors in roof areas, paved surfaces, lawns, wooded areas, agricultural land and other features in determining how

    much water runs off to be collected by city storm sewers. A piece ofproperty that is virtually covered by a building and paved parking lot would pay at a higher rate than a parcel the same size that was largely lawn, garden or woodland.

    As very preliminary, non-specific estimates, Nelson suggested that a 1/3 acre residential lot in an R2 zone might be assessed about $14.15 a year or $3.54 per utility bill. A half-acre lot, zoned R1, might be assessed $15.92 a year or $3.98 on each utility bill.

    "It's just like using city water or the sanitary sewer," Nelson said.

    Councilman Dieter Mielimonka said when the charge is billed there should be a note added to every bill - "This charge due to a federal mandate."
  2. oneastrix

    oneastrix G&G Newbie

    I don't know what to say about that. Are they going to begin taxing them for the amount of sun shine they receive through their windows as well?:confused:
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2002

  3. Calvin

    Calvin G&G Evangelist

    This is getting ridiculous. Someone really had their head up their *ss with this idea. :mad:
  4. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    It's all Federal Mandate - they have to, and it's coming to a neighbor hood near you soon.

    The eco-terrorist have influxed our Congressional body and have gone about implementing their horrid eco-laws. All this has to do with is run off, it's a joke, a terrible joke. Your run-off has contaminates in it (or so they say) and we have to be taxed on that run off because it is contaminated and needs to be cleaned. But they aren't cleaning it - thats the stickler - it's run-off, it goes through the sewage system then out to a river or creek or whatever. It does go through the sewage system and maybe thats the reason for the tax - but I think I read somewhere that the money goes to treat water that never gets treated.

    Simple taxation without representation!
  5. PAPA G

    PAPA G G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    maybe the next step is taxing flatulence!!!
  6. Stopper

    Stopper G&G Newbie

    Ya, but PAPA G those congressmen/women aren't going to tax themselves. Because thats all that comes from them blowhards.
  7. Oxford

    Oxford G&G Evangelist

    Expenses related to stormwater drains VS Sanitary sewer drains

    Doglips: I'm somewhat familiar with the tax that's proposed for Florida residents. I don't like them but here's what they're about.

    The school district where I worked was faced with a huge annual fee based upon the amount of hard surface at each school site. Hard surfaces included: sidewalks, paved playgrounds, roof area, driveways and anything that wouldn't soak in rainwater. An aerial survey is used to document hard surfaces in the area.

    As Stopper said, the idea was to provide funds to pay for repair of and new construction of stormwater drainage systems. Over several years people have kept adding hard surfaces resulting increasing amounts of water running through storm sewers.

    An additional related problem is that lots of storm sewers have holes in their systems resulting in large amounts of water leaking into the sanitary sewer systems. My city is attempting to repair these breaks as fast as they can afford to but the number of breaks is unbelievable large. The result, if they're not repaired, is that all the stormwater, plus sanitary drainage water has to be processed in an expensive sewer treatment system. All this costs even more money. It's cheaper in the long run to repair the stormwater drains than to treat all the water in the treatment plants.

    Who is to pay for this? We all know that us taxpayers always get the bill, one way or another. I don't like it, you don't like it, noboby likes it but it's what has to be done to fix the problem.

    As a result of all this, my school district's operating expense just went up again. These kinds of unplanned expenses keep adding to the cost of taxpayers expenses as well as the cost of operating schools and individual homes, as well as other businesses in the area.

    Basically, it's better to build a high quality,longlasting drainage system for both stormwater & sewer water and reduce the expenses of trying to repair them later.

    Last edited: Aug 30, 2002
  8. Doglips

    Doglips Guest

    In my area we use a lot of retention ponds...usaly created when builders useing the dirt to raise up the planed area out of the swamp....our city water also uses "gray" water .... simi treated water for waterign laws ect...people sign up and pay like $10 a month for unlimited use....I live on a "canal"..a big ditch that the storm drains in our houseing are drins into (or the "lake" about 10 acres in size accross the street).
    Run off has been blamed for algee blooms and fish kills because of fertalizers..nitrgen..comeing from yards.

    Still taxing for it seems extream to me.
  9. Calvin

    Calvin G&G Evangelist

    Pretty soon they are going to realize that the catalytic converters on cars are a joke, too. They contribute more flurocarbons into the athmosphere than they will admit. That's why they have finally decided to do away with the stupid E-checks here in Dayton. You pay them $25 to make sure your car meets local clean air standards. They keep your car for up to 8 hours at their convience, and if you don't get back in time, they will lock your car in the lot, behind barbed wire. Then, you have to wait until morning to pick it up.
    Getting back on course, this run-off tax is obviously the result of a highly financed group of extremely intelligent people who worked very hard for their money, I'm sure. I mean after all, the government just closed a small division who did nothing but taste wine all day long for the government to the tune of $450,000/year.
  10. O.K. so what's next, sunshine in the summer. Leaves in the fall. I guess they can get people for snow in the spring when it melts too. How long before you thing there's a wind tax. :mad:
  11. Oxford

    Oxford G&G Evangelist


    I'm sure you remember the old saying, "Nothing is guaranteed except paying taxes and dying." This is just another example of how that works.