Advocates May Try To Extend Life Of The ‘Flush Tax' In 2027

By Christine Condon, Maryland Matters

September 28, 2026

Since its enactment in 2004, Maryland’s “flush tax” has raised $2.3 billion from property owners, funding pollution-saving upgrades at scores of wastewater treatment plants in the state and keeping hundreds of millions of pounds of nutrients out of the Chesapeake Bay.

The fee for the Bay Restoration Fund is set to be cut in half in 2030, but a group of state legislators and Chesapeake Bay advocates want to step and head that off, possibly making it a subject of discussion in the 2027 legislative session.

“The BRF is arguably one of the single most important successful efforts that the state of Maryland, or really any state that I know of, [has used] to fund major environmental improvements,” said Del. Dylan Behler (D-Anne Arundel), who serves on the House Environment and Transportation Committee.

The fund, established in 2004, has paid for upgraded technology at 66 of the state’s 67 major sewage treatment plants, and another 17 minor plants, according to data from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Sixteen other minor plants are in the planning phase for upgrades.

It’s estimated that the upgrades to the major facilities alone, over a 20-year lifespan, will prevent 200 million pounds of nitrogen and another 10 million pounds of phosphorus from flowing into the bay, where those nutrients spur low-oxygen summer “dead zones” that kill underwater life.

In 2012, lawmakers doubled the fee for many Maryland property owners from $2.50 to $5 per month. But the higher fee is set to sunset in 2030, unless environmentally minded legislators can stop it.

Since 2009, some 64% of all nitrogen reductions and 61% of all phosphorus reductions achieved by the states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay have come from upgrades to sewage treatment plants.

But some of those “enhanced nutrient removal” upgrades in Maryland are approaching the end of their projected 20-year lifespans. About 20 facilities received upgrades more than 15 years ago, meaning it is time to reevaluate the systems, according to data from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Twenty more facilities will hit that point from 2027 through 2029.

The effort to extend — or eliminate — the 2030 sunset could also provide a good opportunity to refine the fund, said Behler, who said lots of ideas are on the table.

The fund could be used for sewage plant maintenance, in addition to upgrades. Or it could do more to improve septic systems or convert homes to public sewer service. Maybe it could help sewage treatment plants deal with removing harmful “forever chemicals” from water they discharge.

“What I don’t think that we can do is simply just reauthorize it and say, ‘Well, we’re just going to do the same thing that we’ve done for 20 years,” Behler said.

But legislators also must be careful not to overextend the fund, or let it be used for outside purposes, said Sen. Sara Love (D-Montgomery). She serves on the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which consists of lawmakers from states in the bay region.

Legislators enter the 2027 session facing a projected $3 billion structural budget gap. Over the past few years, lawmakers have raided special funds in order to address budget woes in the short term.

“I can’t tell you how many people have said, ‘Well, maybe we can look at the BRF for funding,’” Love said. “We have to be very careful to make sure that the fund doesn’t get raided for things that are important — no doubt — but maybe somewhat tangential to the bay.”

Matt Stegman, staff attorney at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said there is an argument for increasing what Maryland home and business owners pay into the Bay Restoration Fund, because ever-increasing construction costs have continued to make infrastructure projects more expensive.

“Even having just the same amount of resources available, you’re still shrinking that pie,” Stegman said.

Stegman also wonders if the fund should be deployed to help Maryland cities and counties in their efforts to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff — considered among the fastest-growing sources of pollution to the bay.

While upgrades at sewage treatment plants are considered a success, dealing with stormwater and agricultural runoff issues has been more challenging for the bay states. That’s why the region fell short of its 2025 pollution reduction goals, though some states, including Maryland, came close.

“We’re spending all this money on stormwater, but as a whole, because of climate change and additional development, everything else … We’re not keeping pace,” Stegman said.

Another debate could be about, for the first time, allowing Bay Restoration dollars to cover the costs of extending sewer service to new rural locales in the state, said Dominic Butchko, director of intergovernmental relations at the Maryland Association of Counties.

MACo, which represents county governments across the state, said preserving the fund is the “first priority” in 2027, so that counties “can continue maintaining existing systems and planning for future needs.”

“Maryland also needs more water and wastewater capacity to support housing and economic growth,” Butchko said. “The BRF should remain part of that conversation, but counties need certainty that the program itself will continue.”

As Maryland faces a shortage of affordable housing, Behler agreed that the idea must be considered during the ongoing reevaluation of the Bay Restoration Fund.

“It’s important for us to remember the other ongoing needs in the state, and the housing crisis is certainly one of them,” Behler said. “And [we] would be remiss if we did not at least have a conversation about what that might look like.”

Since the last time lawmakers took up the Bay Restoration Fund in 2012, Maryland has also seen maintenance woes undermine progress at some of its largest wastewater treatment plants — and smaller ones, too.

Baltimore City’s two facilities, the largest in Maryland, both saw staffing woes in the wake of the pandemic and maintenance backlogs caused equipment to fall into disrepair. That led to excess pollution entering the Patapsco and Back rivers, and an eventual consent decree for the city.

Smaller plants on the Eastern Shore, where jurisdictions have fewer staff members to run facilities and manage contracts, have also faced struggles, said Matt Pluta, the Choptank Riverkeeper and director of riverkeeper programs at the nonprofit ShoreRivers.

“We have specific examples here on the Eastern Shore, where plants have been upgraded with funds from the BRF, but are being run into the ground,” Pluta said.

He believes that, if lawmakers update the Bay Restoration Fund in 2027, they should consider allowing those jurisdictions to use the money to keep plants in good working order, and prevent excess pollution from entering Eastern Shore rivers.

“It’s one thing for the government to hand out funds and say, ‘Upgrade this plant,’ and it’s another thing for a facility that lacks a town engineer to oversee those contracts,” Pluta said.

Pluta also believes more could be done with the Bay Restoration Fund to transition more of the state away from septic systems and onto wastewater treatment plants.

“We have areas that are low-lying on septic systems that need to be bailed out — figuratively and literally. And that bailout is probably to hook them onto sewer,” Pluta said.

There also ought to be conversations, Stegman said about improving the smaller slice of Bay Restoration funds that pay farmers to plant cover crops during the winter months to slow down harmful runoff. Those funds are currently doled out to farmers who apply on a per acre basis, but there is an argument that the state should target the program more precisely, with more money for cover crops that are most successful at reducing nutrients, he said.

“Is it the time to maybe raise the bar on some of these programs to say, ‘Look, we are going to ask more of you to get this money’?” Stegman said.

Amid all the debate, environmentalists say they see the next legislative session as a good chance to make improvements to a 22-year-old fund.

“To us, it’s an opportunity. We’ve seen the success. Let’s build on it and match it to modern times,” Pluta said.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: scrane@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and Twitter.