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.