Puget Sound cleanup is a good idea but not this way

A BAD idea in 2010 is still a bad idea in 2011.

Surprisingly, The Seattle Times now endorses a bad idea it opposed last year. In editorializing on the so-called Clean Water Jobs Act, The Times supports a proposal that is unchanged from last year in most regards and significantly worse in important areas ["Sound legislation for state waterways," editorial, Opinion, April 2].

Like last year, this bill would impose an additional charge on hazardous substances in addition to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) tax the state already collects. That tax is projected to generate $300 million in the coming biennium. Early versions of the 2011-13 budget end the recent practice of sweeping that money into the general fund and dedicate $46 million to stormwater cleanup.

That's a start. But there are still too many other programs being funded from that account — from promoting use of compost piles to discouraging use of burn barrels. If we prioritize correctly, we shouldn't need additional taxes.

Last year, the proposal was an additional tax of between 0.7 and 1.5 percent of the value of the material. This year, it's 1.0 percent.

Even though the new charge is a similar size and calculated in the same way, this year's bill dubs the charge a "fee" rather than a tax. Why the change in terminology?

After passage of Initiative 1053, a new tax requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature to become law, while a new fee requires only a simple majority. Proponents of the new charge are calling it a fee in an attempt to circumvent the will of the voters and slide by with fewer votes.

What walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is virtually always, in fact, a duck. But this bill's proponents are going to great — and expensive — lengths in their attempts to claim otherwise. Hoping to disguise the fact that it's still a tax, they propose that the new charge be collected not by the state Department of Revenue, which would make it part of the state's master tax form, but by the Department of Ecology.

To do so, the bill creates a new bureaucracy within Ecology to collect and administer the tax. Since Ecology isn't currently in the business of collecting taxes, we don't know how large this bureaucracy would become. But the first fiscal note on the bill estimated that the department would require hiring 50 new employees over the coming years.

This is not the efficient and transparent government The Times has been calling for in its Reset 2011 editorial agenda.

Another important change is that last year's proposal imposed the tax on crude oil, while this year the bill's definition of petroleum products specifically includes gasoline and diesel fuel. This definition brings the cost much closer to the consumer, and virtually ensures that Washington families will feel it directly at the pump. No one can say how much fuel prices will rise, but the new tax is estimated to generate $345 million per biennium, so you can bet it will be noticeable.

Taxing gas and diesel specifically also makes the bill a clear violation of the 18th amendment to our state constitution, which requires that fuel taxes are used for highway purposes.

What hasn't changed from last year is the fact that we should be using the existing MTCA tax to fund important stormwater cleanup projects rather than imposing new taxes.

In Reset 2011, The Times rightly urges government to eliminate lower-priority programs and focus its limited resources on the most important work. If stormwater is the state's No. 1 environmental priority, as proponents claim, then we should be devoting a much larger percentage of the existing MTCA money to that effort.

We all think that cleaning up our state's waterways is a good idea. But this bill simply isn't the right way to do it.

State Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Bellingham, represents Washington's 42nd Legislative District.