Greater Victoria Sewage Tax:
Greater Victoria is seeking to have a sewage tax increase placed upon homeowners within the region. This tax is to be used to pay for the damage that the sewage dumping can cause upon the water within the region. Essentially, the sewage water that comes from Victoria is being sent back into the Juan de Fuca Strait with only primary levels of treatment.
Primary treatment of wastewater is the first step in the process of treating wastewater before it is disposed of. This step involves collection of the wastewater and allowing the solid waste to settle to the bottom, which would then allow the water and oils to go above. The waste that has settled is then extracted and use for other uses such as fertilizer and methane productions. Then, what is left will then move to the next step of secondary treatment. Secondary treatment is based on taking the wastewater with its suspensions and other dissolved elements and removing them from the water. This is done through the use of various organisms, which can eliminate them. Following this, the water is then disposed of or goes through a tertiary treatment.
The main problem that is arising is that the sewage in Victoria is only undergoing the primary treatment and not the secondary treatment. Thus, that water with the suspensions and dissolved material is being dumped into the ocean and polluting it. Victoria has been seeking to fund a new treatment plant in order to at least perform the secondary treatment. However, in order to do so, they needed to create funding, 1/3rd of which is being funded by the Federal government. Another portion is being funded by the Provincial government and the rest being funded by the Municipal. In order for the municipal government to create funding, it has sought to create a much larger sewage tax.
The sewage tax is based around taxing a specific level on homeowners according to the region that they live in. In a sense, this should be in the region that is most likely to cause damage set at approximately 200-300 per year. However, it is not a tax on how much sewage is actually disposed of by the household. As such, this is fairly disproportionate in making those who cause the most damage as being those who pay the most as it is a uniform charge depending on the area that you are in. The original proposal was to have a tax based on the estimated value of the house with a charge of approximately $232 per annum for every $100000 that your house is worth. This one too would be fairly unfair, but at least slightly increases the accountability of users who exude the most sewage. The higher the value, the more waste that is usually disposed of due to those with larger incomes having more to dispose of and often the larger households having houses worth more.
With the municipal government needing to raise approximately $260million dollars in order to pay for the treatment plant (the total cost being 783 with the Federal and Provincial governments paying the remainder), the government needs to raise a significant amount of money. By charging the amount that they are, in order to find how appropriate the tax is, we would need to investigate both how long the tax will be in place and who will apply to. In this sense, everyone that is can be responsible for the emission will be paying the tax, but the length of time that it is paid is not clearly defined. What we can do to examine the pricing of the tax is to look at how many households are approximately in the area, which is approximately 102613 according to BC Stats as of 2011. This project would be paid off in approximately 10 years if the tax has an average of $255 per annum. Even with a very brief look, it would seem that this tax is a reasonable amount to account for the cost of the project. Of course there would be the added costs of maintenance, but the project would definitely be expected to last well beyond 10 years. However, what is contentious is whether the tax may be too high and disproportionate and that may be possible.
With a tax that is placed at almost a flat rate across the population, it will negatively impact the poor of the region. Basically, this will occur because they will be forced to pay a much larger proportion of their income on the tax. However, what should not be forgotten is how the tax is on homeowners themselves and not necessarily on the people living in the house itself. As such, renters will not necessarily be directly affected. The poorest income levels are often those who are renting so it can be argued that they will not be affected. However, this can definitely be countered with the ability of the landlords to simply increase the monthly rent to account for the tax itself.
Clearly, the new waste management facility should be effective in improving the water that is sent out. However, since the tax is a flat rate, which does not vary over time, it will not create disincentive to decrease waste. Of course, how much can people decrease the level of their waste water? The main level of contention of course would be the level of the tax and how appropriate it is to pay for the facility without hurting the population too much.
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/schools/sdinfo/acc_contracts/2013/61.pdf
http://www.saanichnews.com/opinion/174656351.html?mobile=true
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for sharing. T’was a good read. Would you mind clarifying the difference in tax rates in terms of household unit versus the rate levied in various industries? Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Thanks,
Vicki