Storm-water bill revived amid flak over compromise
It looks like there could be a legislative showdown after all over Maryland's new storm-water pollution rules. Del. Maggie McIntosh, the Baltimore Democrat who heads the House Environmental Matters Committee, has revived a bill that would grant developers some breaks from the stringent regulations.
HB1125 is scheduled to be heard by McIntosh's committee at 2 p.m. Wednesday, March 24. It would exempt from the new rules an unknown number of developments that are already in the works, while easing requirements on redevelopment projects. Only the bill's sponsors are to be allowed to testify, though others can submit written comments.
McIntosh had cancelled a hearing on the bill after getting builders, local officials and some environmentalists to agree on changes to the rules that would avoid what promised to be a bitter legislative debate. Builders had complained that the rules would impose huge costs on projects already in the planning pipeline. They and local officials also voiced concerns the rules would make redevelopment less feasible, undermining the state's Smart Growth efforts. But environmentalists countered that the rules were not that onerous and opposed any delays or weakening, arguing that runoff from developed land is a growing threat to the Chesapeake Bay.
The Maryland Department of the Environment last week proposed emergency regulations to bring its storm-water rules in line with the agreement, which granted builders most of what they sought. Some environmentalists agreed to the compromise, saying they feared lawmakers might make even greater rollbacks if legislation went forward.
But Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, presiding chairman of the House-Senate committee that reviews regulations, has objected to the deal and demanded answers to a series of questions about MDE's proposed rules changes.
The Prince George's County Democrat could threaten the deal if his joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review blocks MDE from making changes to the rules by May 4, when the storm-water regulations take effect.
The panel can't veto regulations outright, but it can stop attempts to speed their enactment as "emergency" rules, as MDE had proposed. To go back and make the changes following standard regulatory procedures would require months of public notice and comment, meaning they couldn't be finalized until after the storm-water rules to which developers object have already taken effect.
McIntosh had said she would dust off the storm-water bill if anything threatened to block or delay the agreed-upon changes. That would suit just fine those environmentalists who were not part of the talks that lead to the deal. They've been critical of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others who agreed to the compromise.
So this sets up a potential duel between two of the General Assembly's greener legislators - McIntosh and Pinsky. As part of the House leadership, McIntosh helped push through 2007 legislation to tighten storm-water controls. But she now fears the state's rules go too far and could inadvertently undermine efforts to promote redevelopment of Baltimore and other urban areas. Pinsky sides with those environmentalists who oppose any weakening of the rules and contends the Senate would never agree to them, even if the House did.
With a renewed lobbying battle in Annapolis looming, builders on Thursday released a report projecting that the state's storm-water rules, if unchanged, could cost nearly 8,000 construction jobs and reduce state and local tax revenues by $50 million at a time when Maryland and the rest of the country are struggling with high unemployment and government budget crises because of recession-driven dips in tax revenues.
The Bay Foundation, though a backer of the compromise to change the regulations, disputed the report. The environmental group released a statement saying the report presents a "false choice" between cleaning up the bay and having a healthy economy. It also noted that an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that following "low-impact development" methods to control more runoff could actually lower construction costs in many cases.
(Baltimore Sun file photos by Monica Lopossay and Glenn Fawcett)
Comments
They sound like they have revived the motion from the old bumper stcker to "Pave The Bay"!
Posted by: charles collings | March 19, 2010 4:58 PM