This Washington
Toxics Tax Still in Play
At the beginning of this year's legislative session, environmental advocacy groups like the Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters had high hopes for an idea: Triple the hazardous substance tax (passed by voters in 1988 to tax gunk like petroleum to pay for stormwater cleanup) and entice legislators—facing a $2.8 billion shortfall—by saying the money could go to the general fund for a few years before getting earmarked back to stormwater clean up.
Environmentalists also pointed out that the tax—at .7 percent—hadn't been raised since voters approved it 22 years ago.
The idea got off to a good start: House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-43) said he was all for it and Gov. Chris Gregoire put it in her budget.
However, by February, the idea wasn't included in the Senate or House budget, and a separate watered-down version passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee. (The original version—a 2 percent tax—raised $225 million a year. The revised version—a .4 percent increase over four years—would raise about $45 million.)
Additionally, thanks pressure from the oil industry, petroleum exports would not be taxed. The oil industry argued that exports do not pollute stormwater here in Washington State.
However, environmental lobbyists struck back this week, they say. "We let legislators know we weren't happy with what they had done," WCV lobbyist Cliff Traisman says. "At some point legislators have to look the oil industry in the eye and say they are going to tax the number one contributor to the number one water pollution problem in our state."
Traisman says they have a new deal: Bump the tax up right away to .85 percent for $100 million a year, but still leave out the exported oil, worth about $40 million a year.
Traisman says the $100 million would go exclusively to stormwater cleanup, but sources tell PubliCola that using the money for the general fund may still be in play as the House and Senate try to agree on a revenue package.
We have a calls in to oil industry spokesman Dave Fisher and Rep Timm Ormsby (D-3), the original sponsor of the bill.
Environmentalists also pointed out that the tax—at .7 percent—hadn't been raised since voters approved it 22 years ago.
The idea got off to a good start: House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-43) said he was all for it and Gov. Chris Gregoire put it in her budget.
However, by February, the idea wasn't included in the Senate or House budget, and a separate watered-down version passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee. (The original version—a 2 percent tax—raised $225 million a year. The revised version—a .4 percent increase over four years—would raise about $45 million.)
Additionally, thanks pressure from the oil industry, petroleum exports would not be taxed. The oil industry argued that exports do not pollute stormwater here in Washington State.
However, environmental lobbyists struck back this week, they say. "We let legislators know we weren't happy with what they had done," WCV lobbyist Cliff Traisman says. "At some point legislators have to look the oil industry in the eye and say they are going to tax the number one contributor to the number one water pollution problem in our state."
Traisman says they have a new deal: Bump the tax up right away to .85 percent for $100 million a year, but still leave out the exported oil, worth about $40 million a year.
Traisman says the $100 million would go exclusively to stormwater cleanup, but sources tell PubliCola that using the money for the general fund may still be in play as the House and Senate try to agree on a revenue package.
We have a calls in to oil industry spokesman Dave Fisher and Rep Timm Ormsby (D-3), the original sponsor of the bill.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
