Water runoff tax question

[Torellian]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WI

I’ve heard about a lawsuit in Virginia against the EPA when the EPA tried to classify rainwater as a pollutant and then tax people for it. The EPA lost the lawsuit. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/03/virginia-judge-rules-epa-overstepped-authority-trying-to-regulate-water-as/

But my city has been doing the same thing for years. A “Stormwater runoff” charge was added to our water bills years ago. It started off as a small fee, and has been growing in cost ever since to the current point where it is now a third of the total cost of our water bill.

If the EPA—a federal agency—can lose a lawsuit to force people to pay a fee, or tax, for the fact that it rains, (even when it doesn’t rain) then would it be easier or harder to win a lawsuit against a local municipality for doing the same thing?

Also, if a lawsuit were to be filed against the city, who would do it? Is this something I should do on my own, or is it more of a class action type lawsuit, since it involves everyone who pays a water bill?

 

[tranquility]

They are completely different things. The "fee" for run off is not a "tax" in that there is a cost to dealing with the rain at the local level.

 

[Torellian]

They are completely different things. The "fee" for run off is not a "tax" in that there is a cost to dealing with the rain at the local level.

To be fair, I don't know if it's called a fee or tax, but it's a charge on the bill.

 

[tranquility]

The local run off charge is a fee to (purportedly) deal with the run off. I say purportedly as my county wants to start doing the same thing and all it does is increase the taxes and calling it a fee is a lie. Clever lie, sure. But, politicians are good at clever lies.

The EPA issue was not the same thing. It is more, definitionally, a tax. It had to do with a completely different set of rules under the EPA enactment statutes.

 

[FlyingRon]

I answered this on the other forum, but I guess you didn't like my answer.

If you bothered to actually read about the decision, the issue was that the EPA has no authority because they only can regulate "pollution" issues and a conservative court has determined that stormwater runoff isn't pollution.

That doesn't mean that the Wisconsin DNR doesn't have a enabling mandate from the state legislature to pass administer (and enforce on the localities) their storm water plans. Then you'd have to show the local governments don't have taxing authority to collect money to implement the plan. That's not the same principle that was in the Federal decision at all.