Shelling out to save Puget Sound
With a possible cost of $20 billion, massive environmental restoration might be a hard sell in these hard times, especially when the plan isn't yet clear.
Last spring, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed legislation that took the first small step toward restoring Puget Sound's biological health by 2020, establishing a permanent Puget Sound Partnership and appropriating $238 million — not all of it new money — over the current budget biennium to start the job. That $238 million may sound like a nice chunk of change but amounts to only 3 percent of the $8 billion total price tag originally projected. If the actual cost of restoring Puget Sound is closer to $20 billion, as some have suggested, then the appropriation is a small drop in a very large bucket.
Gregoire hasn't backed away from her commitment to the Sound — indeed, she has reaffirmed it — but that is less reassuring than perhaps it should be.
For one thing, if she loses to Republican Dino Rossi in November, all bets are presumably off. For another, we have no lack of big-ticket items on our horizon, and little prospect of good times ahead.
Political leaders and journalists talk about the billions we will have to pay — whether it's through taxes or tolls or some other means — to either replace or repair the Highway 520 bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Add to the list the road projects that weren't funded when Proposition 1 went down in flames, the maintenance projects that were never included in Proposition 1, our fleet of rusting ferries, and maybe, dare we say it, funding to keep the gladiatorial spectacles rolling in a new Tim Eyman's Initiative 960 has made legislators skittish about proposing revenue increases, and some economic soothsayers have examined the entrails and seen recession.
Whether or not "we're going into a recession at all is uncertain," Geoff Colvin writes in Fortune. "Merrill Lynch's chief economist says we're already in one; Goldman Sachs's chief economist says we'll be in one by next quarter; Lehman Brothers' chief economist still doesn't expect one. Let's not worry about what to call it: The reality is that we're in a deep economic slowdown that will affect millions of people." Clearly, Bush's tax-rebate proposal and the Fed's big rate cut are both designed to keep the R from the door, but any way you slice it, short-term economic prospects look bleak.
In last month's State of the State address, Gregoire urged the Legislature to bank most of the projected budget surplus against a recession. This does not seem a propitious time to think about raising a very large pile of new cash. Of course, by the time the Partnership is ready to pass the hat, the economy may have turned around. But the long list of competing capital expenditures won't go anywhere.
Way back in the spring of 2007, when enthusiasm for saving the Sound ran high and the housing bubble hadn't yet burst, people might have supported an $8 billion or even a $20 billion financing plan. What are the chances that they'll support it a year or two hence? Should we have caught the wave in 2007? Has it passed us by?
At a recent City Club luncheon discussion of Puget Sound, several panelists, including Puget Sound Partnership executive director David Dicks, argued that we haven't missed that chance at all, that we're laying the necessary groundwork for public financing.
Panelist John Lombard, author of Saving Puget Sound, disagreed. He argued that if you're talking about traditional tax proposals, we have indeed missed our chance. This is no environment in which to sell people on $8 billion or so of new taxes. He thinks we should look at something non-traditional, such as a $1 million tax on each gallon of fresh water taken from the natural system. That would raise more than enough money and also raise people's consciousness — like forcing drivers to pay tolls, rather than funding roads or bridges through general taxation.
The other panelists maintained that it's crucial to figure out what must be done before we ask people for money to do it. They pointed to Proposition 1 as proof that people vote no if they don't know what they're being asked to pay for. Their idea is to define the problems, define solutions, and only then ask people for money. One City Club audience member with a long memory of Puget Sound issues and perhaps a touch of cynicism said she grew impatient with the idea that we don't know what has to be done. We've known it for years, she said; we just haven't done it.
That has been the Partnership's approach all along. First, it produces an "Action Agenda" that lays out where we are, where we want to go, and how we want to get there. Then it raises billions for the journey. The Action Agenda is due in September. A couple of speakers agreed that a September deadline would be hard to meet. Mike Sato of People for Puget Sound said that it was crucial to meet the deadline: without the agenda, everything else falls by the wayside, and the stated goal of restoring the Sound to health by 2020 — always a rather ambitious one — recedes into never-neverland.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Feb 8, 9:38 a.m. inappropriate
Funding for cleanup should be broad based and focus on infrastructure: Good wrap up of the issues facing PS cleanup. My feeling on getting the $ is that, we ought to be looking at "true costs" of major projects, like large scale construction projects (i.e malls, suburbs) that cover large porous surfaces with concrete. By placing special taxes on infrastructure projects, roads, malls(like the Cabella project in Lacy now going in), we can be asking of the development community/investors to help finance the protection and cleanup of the very mess that their massive parking lots and suburban sprawl makes to the environment. This could also be mitigated by using new construction techniques that allow surface runoff to get through to the ground, like the latest in paver technology.
Whereever the money comes from, the current world of taxation we face is about bottom up fee based structure, like the Narrows bridge. If you create it, use it, or enjoy it, be prepared to pay more than just the construction costs, for example, be prepared to help fund cleaning up your mess. Or find out new ways to do your thing without causing the problem in the first place!
Posted Fri, Feb 8, 9:55 a.m. inappropriate
The Water Tax: Dan: How would Lombard's proposal work? I'd be interested in some details on that. Also, I think your point is really important: How do you define success and what would it look like? Not visually, of course, but in terms of the fundamentals.
Posted Fri, Feb 8, 10:03 a.m. inappropriate
What's the plan?: The idea that anyone can project the $$ costs of a Puget Sound "clean-up plan" without knowing the substance of the plan strikes me as peculiar and cause for skepticism.
Posted Fri, Feb 8, 11:07 a.m. inappropriate
Lombard's proposal: According to the article, Lombard thinks we should "look at something non-traditional, such as a $1 million tax on each gallon of fresh water taken from the natural system." That would surely raise enough money. I assume you really meant something more like a $1 tax on each million gallons of fresh water taken from the natural system.
Posted Fri, Feb 8, 11:30 a.m. inappropriate
Bad typo: Lombard's proposal, if I recall correctly, is for a 1/10¢ per gallon tax - not $1 million per gallon, as the story said. Bad proofreading.
One omission I see with this fee is that it will be only possible to collect it for central water systems, while much of the problem comes from dispersed single family residences in expanding suburbia (AKA sprawl). In other words, its paid almost entirely by urban people while suburban sprawl gets off for free.
Actually, this is just deja vu all over again. Going back about 20 years, we first had the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSQA) which had no authority. Then we had Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) which also had (and still has) no authority. And now we've got the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP), again with no authority. The trend is clear, from "authority" to "team" to "partnership." Perhaps next we'll have the "Puget Sound Transformational Group Grope." But don't worry, it won't have any authority.
It really will require a radical new approach to even prevent PS form deteriorating further. Some of the changes seem far removed from the subject, but are not. For example, Washington has one of the most regressive vesting structures in the country. Vesting refers to when the laws that a development has to meet are locked in. In Washington currently, as soon as an application is considered "complete," it is vested. Even if the law is changed, the new laws will not apply to that development. The "rush to the permit counter" whenever environmental or land use laws are strenghtened is the result. In most states, substantial development must occur before an application is vested. Old undeveloped subdivisions are another example. On Whidbey Island (and likely in other shoreline areas) there are antique plats of urban size lots dating back 100 years that still possibly have the "right" to develop. And the suburban sprawl allowed by the failure of the Growth Management Act is yet another example. Not to mention the Forest Practices Act, which allows logging of wetlands unless they don't have trees.
Well, talk to you all again in 20 years for the unveiling of the Puget Sound Transformational Group Grope, a happy day when environmentalists and developers and politicians will gather to cuddle and avoid saying the "A" and "R" words (authority and regulation).
Posted Sat, Feb 9, 5:40 p.m. inappropriate
Spitting in the Ocean: I don't understand what we'll be getting for the money. Apparently, the Sound looks great, but inside things are bad. By the way, the Sound is a huge, huge body of water, so it's hard to believe that we're really capable of destroying the place. Years ago the matra from polluters was "Dilution is the solution!" which is true at least in part. Where it's not true, then let's focus our efforts.
No ocean, river, or stream is pristine. I read recently that most pollution in our streams is animal and pet waste. Is eliminatiing wildlife and pets part of the plan to clean up the Sound? How many pet exterminators will we buy for $20 billion? And why does it cost $20 billion? How much of that will be for manpower? How much for capital items? How much for bureaucracy? Would $20 billion invested in the environment elsewhere have greater impact? Isn't the real problem that Puget Sound is downstream from the source of nearly all polluting sources?
In terms of development-driven pollution, I presume we have mostly petroleum-based and fertilizer-based pollution from street and lawn run-off. So maybe we should be investing not in cleaning up the Sound but in controlling these sources of pollution throughout the Puget Sound Area. If that's true, then spending $20B on municipal and county cleanup is what is required. By the way, the state has a population of about 6 million, so that comes out to $3,333 for every man woman and child in the state, which is a pretty hefty bill for the average household, particularly since we already spend a huge amount on various environmental enterprises already. A full performance and financial accounting of all existing governmental environmental ventures should be a precursor to spitting $20 billion, or even the initial $238 million, into the proverbial ocean. even if it is our ocean.
Posted Sat, Feb 9, 5:53 p.m. inappropriate
$.001 PER GALLON: When Lake Washington was "cleaned up" a major part of the work was a collector sewer that was installed around the lake. This was a simple thing to understand. Not to do but to understand. The sewage was collected, it was treated and discharged (somewhere). High fives all around.
It is disappointing to read the above article and not see any two-sentence explanations of what has to be done. Stop using water? stop driving cars? haul parking lot runoff to Oregon?
Can it be so complex that the work cannot be described? "give us the money and we'll figure what to do with it because it really needs to be done"?
$.001 per gallon would cost my wife and I about $1.90 per month, not bad. Why can't suburban water systems collect that? it seems to me that anyone who is not using their own well would be easily visible and thus taxable.
Posted Sat, Feb 9, 10:42 p.m. inappropriate
The challenges of dealing with Airport pollution: I live near Seatac, which has over the years dumped an immense amount of runoff into Puget Sound via Miller, Walker and Des Moines creeks. The good news is overall the Port is making progress on taking care of its pollution. However, the science for doing this is not always clear, and there are certainly disagreements about what's the right amount of zinc, copper, oil, gas, etc that's appropriate to have flow into Puget Sound.
Currently, there's a Wildlife Attractants Task Force which is using national (not local) data about bird strikes to try to force through a new manual governing what anyone who lives within 5 miles of an airport can do. Think of the area covered by 5 miles out from Seatac, Boeing Field and Renton Airports: it is an immense amount of Puget Sound, Lake Washington etc.
In many ways this task force looks like an attempt by the Port and by its allies to dumb down environmental laws in the vicinity of airports, so that next time there's a big push to pave over wetlands, they will have more favorable rules in place.
The point here is: the people on the Puget Sound restoration group can talk all they want about "grass roots" initiatives to protect creeks and the environment. We've had plenty of that in the vicinity of Seatac. But grass roots efforts work much more effectively if there's a clear framework in place in which to act. When there isn't, then big money interests just wait out the opposition.
It is easy to get cynical about claims that Puget Sound is in trouble and we need to spend billions to clean it up when ironically, some of the people who are saying this are the ones who fought in favor of the Port's efforts to get laxer rules in place for construction of the third runway.
An example of this was the notorious dirty fill bill, SSB 5787, which gave the Port authority to use very dubious tests measuring the amount of lead, arsenic, oil, gas, mercury, zinc, copper etc in fill dirt to be put into the wetlands that drain into Puget Sound.
I hope Puget Sound can be saved. A first step will be for current laws to be enforced, and not require citizens to constantly have to put up money in order to make sure governments like the Port actually live within the currently existing environmental laws.
Posted Mon, Feb 18, 11:38 a.m. inappropriate
Clarification from the Author: This is John Lombard, and I'm glad to see that I've got enough readers out there that the proposal from my book, Saving Puget Sound, for a $.001/gallon tax on water withdrawals (rather than the $1 million/gallon figure in the original article) made it into the discussion without my help.
I'd like to add just a few points to the discussion:
1) As with the first commenter, I, too, argue that we should pay for restoring/conserving the Puget Sound ecosystem by trying to incorporate the environmental costs of various activities into the choices involved, so "the polluter pays." But this is not just about development, nor is it just about pollution (habitat degradation is typically an even bigger issue, if our concern is damage to the ecosystem). I propose an "environmental impact fee" on development, similar to impact fees currently authorized to pay for the infrastructure needed to serve growth (road improvements, new schools, etc.). An even bigger revenue source than either a water withdrawal tax or an environmental impact fee would take into account the impacts from our driving and the road system needed to accommodate it. The simplest way to do this would be to remove the exemption for gasoline from the sales tax. There is no legal impediment to this, and it would raise approximately $500/million a year just in the Puget Sound area. Proceeds from these various revenue sources could not only pay for a very ambitious conservation program, they could help REDUCE general sales or property taxes. This is all discussed at greater length in my book.
2) In answer to the question, how would the water tax work: It would apply to all withdrawals, including those from individual wells; where withdrawals are not metered, it would apply to the full water right, rather than the actual amount withdrawn. This would be a strong incentive to meter withdrawals (the first step for any sensible conservation program) and to give up unused water rights (an important public policy goal). There could be multiple adjustments/exceptions to address various concerns this would raise. I think a lower rate would be appropriate for properties on septic systems, because much of their water use does ultimately recirculate back to aquifers. Commercial farmers using water-efficient irrigation equipment could be exempt or pay a much lower rate (as discussed at greater length in my book, contrary to popular belief the very large majority of these farms are subsidizing US, not the other way around, in the Puget Sound area; this is especially a concern given economic pressures to convert to development, which would be worse for the environment). To address concerns about regressivity, some allowance for basic household use (say 100 gallons/day) could be exempt from the tax as well. Irrigation is the biggest problem, anyway, given how much water is used and when (just when natural systems need it most).
3) In answer to the question how to define "success," I would say that our overall goal should be to preserve as much of our natural heritage as possible in the face of population growth and climate change. That can be measured by the status of key indicator species, chosen both because they indicate the health of much larger systems and because many appropriate species are "charismatic" and mean much to people who live here: orcas, coho salmon, river otters, pileated woodpeckers, spotted owls (although their losses in the face of barred owls make them a less than ideal indicator for the overall health of old growth forests), etc. What would success "look like"? That could best be seen in the health and functioning of key places for our ecosystem: floodplains, estuaries, the Puget Sound shoreline, and smaller scale but important places, such as the South Sound prairies.
Sorry for the long submittal! It's tough to shut an author up! I look forward to the ongoing discussion.