A state lawmaker is proposing a tax on tap water to revamp New Jersey’s aging pipelines.
State Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, says water pipelines across the state are old, they’re decaying, they pose a serious health risk and the issue is getting worse.
He introduced legislation that would impose a 10-cent tax on every 1,000 gallons consumed, which Smith estimates would cost the average New Jersey household about $32 a year and would net the state about $150 million annually.
The money would be used to repair and replace aging infrastructure.
Frankly, I think are still missing a huge taxing opportunity. After taxing the water at the ‘intake’ point, they should mandate special toilets which measure the ‘output’. One should then be taxed on both ends. After all, the output is toxic. 8-|
This should be a national public works program. The infrastructure of this country has crumbled and Flint is not an isolated case. It’s just the only one that’s gotten attention.
One bad pipe in a system can destroy the rest of them. Once one begins to erode, the corrosive water will damage the other pipes.
I’m glad NJ is thinking about doing something but it’s nowhere near enough.
I get this is a tax on top of the charge for water, but not really different than the utility provider just charging more. Different municipalities fund construction or updates in different ways. I’ve worked on projects where the sewer tap permit for a private home is $10k. That’s just for the permit, not for the actual equipment on which I’m sure you pay a tax. It does’t cost the municipality $10k to process the permit. The monthly water and sewerage charge included not just the current costs of running the system but reserves for updating the system.
NJ’s proposal is for the state to get money to spread among the cities and towns. Any town could charge their own ‘tax’ but then it would be limited to helping that town only, and not Camden and Newark and other big cities.
Something has to be done. It sounds like a reasonable way to finance it.
When I lived in Hoboken in the early 80s, the tap water was visibly colored. An MD friend working in public health who was involved in a project monitoring the supply told me we shouldn’t drink it. Of course, we did so anyway. Should have gotten some kind of a filter.
@twoinanddone: Often the large permit fees–such as $10,000–are referred to as “impact fees” due to the increasing demand for & limited supplies of drinking water, and due to other environmental impact upon the community.
There has long been a charge for water and sewer in our state. I guess NJ is adding a small tax on top of it. I’m surprised this is news. What am I missing? Our state has crumbling infrastructure as well and pipes that leak and burst as they are also aging.
Sounds good to me if statewide money will fix pipes everywhere without running into individual places getting into the Flint problems. Leaving it up to the locals who may vote no versus mandating fixes and providing funding. Sure beats fixup mandates without funding that make cities pull money from other needs. Hopefully it will mean getting a proper job done- no places trying to save their local tax dollars by going short term cheap.
It’s news because it is just another money grab. What did they do with all the money they should have been setting aside for infrastructure improvement? Should have been built into the cost of the water. Now, if I live in a newer town, with good pipes, I’ll be taxed for someone else’s pipes. Great.
Yes, please use the big pot of tax funds to actually fix the water infrastructure statewide instead of diverting it to some legislator’s other pet project or the crisis of the week. Also, please fix ALL the infrastructure, not just the wealthier areas or higher population portions. We ALL need clean tap water that is reliable.
When everything is fixed, either eliminate the tax or save it for upgrades and additional repairs—no diversions!
@Consolation it might not have made a difference. Filters are good for some things but not most- and especially not the most harmful. For example, lead filters are pretty ineffective in Flint.
We have water service fees and sewer service fees in addition to volume charges that are for usage.
They have renamed them “ready to serve - water” and “ready to serve - sewer” but they are basically taxes. They total $28.91/month and I know that because we have an extra meter that isn’t used but hasn’t been put out of service yet by the water company (4 months and counting…).
We live in a drought prone area. When there’s a drought water restrictions are put into place - along with financial penalties. Makes sense.
When we have heavy rain years people don’t use as much water as during ‘regular’ years. The irrigatios systems get turned on later in the year. Guess what, the water department needs to raise rates because…consumption is down and they aren’t collecting enough $$.
Drought year allotments are based on usage history. Due to circumstances, my parent’s home is not in need of a lot of water right now. But, in order to avoid a very predictable drought penalty in the future, which would be based on the current low usage, I need to actually run the water at their house for no reason at all other than to spin the meter.
There’s talk of taxing wells. Even though the well owners are wholly and completely responsible for their own maintenance and servicing. If their well runs dry the local water department doesn’t magically and free of charge start delivering the product. Yet, they still want to tax these folks.
IMO it’s all based on the same philosophical attitude…hey, we don’t gots enough to do what we promised to do with what we gots when we gots them to give us the $$ to begin with. We can easily solve any problem by simply getting more of what we now claim we need. We don’t have to worry about how to ‘make’ a $, we have unlimited withdrawal rights from our customer’s bank accounts.
What could possibly go wrong with that approach when you separate the ability to spend from the requirement to produce?
Na, just screwing the rich folk wanting to build in the area. The developer already had to put in the infrastructure, build lift stations, obtain water rights. The community wasn’t impacted all that much since the town wasn’t going to provide any water, sewer, or road maintenance. Usually there is an obligation for the developer to make a donation of land or a school to the school district
Boulder County controlled growth by limiting sewer taps for years, and charging a fortune for the sewer permits it granted. That was rich folk (the residents of Boulder County) trying to keep others out of their backyards.
Is it actually going to that specific use? We had a rain tax in Maryland that was eliminated. The problem is the funds aren’t put in lock boxes, they’re usually thrown into the general fund. Same thing with our lottery and casinos, they are supposed to fund schools, once again it goes to the general fund while kids in Baltimore sit in broken down schools with no heat while the administrators take the funds for bus trips to protest. It sounds all well and good if you think your government spends your money better than you but you’d probably have better luck having a go fund me campaign.