Turbulence over storm-water deal
A deal to give some development projects a break from Maryland's new storm-water pollution regulations may not be settled just yet.
Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, presiding chairman of the legislative committee that reviews regulations, has written a letter to state Environment Secretary Shari T. Wilson saying the agreement announced last week raises "many questions," and he wants answers. His questions could cause trouble, since the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review has the power to veto emergency regulations, which are key to carrying out the deal.
Builders, local officials and representatives of some environmental groups said last week that they'd reached what they called a compromise on the regulations, which were unveiled last year. The rules, which require developers to do more to control polluted runoff, had riled builders and local officials, who complained they would make some projects too costly to construct. They said they'd have to revamp projects already begun using the current, less stringent requirements. And they warned that redevelopment would be discouraged, undermining the state's Smart Growth anti-sprawl efforts.
The parties agreed to "grandfather" an unknown number of developments already under way or with at least preliminary approval from local governments. They also agreed to ease requirements on some redevelopment projects. The changes would have to be made via emergency regulations to avoid the original rules from taking effect on May 4. Wilson's Department of the Environment sent the emergency rules to Pinsky's committee at the end of last week.
Activist involved in reaching the deal said it was needed to avoid the risk that worse changes might get pushed through the General Assembly this year. But the deal has split environmental activists, with some arguing that it was unwise to give in, considering the growing harm storm-water runoff is causing to streams and the Chesapeake Bay. They also contend that bills granting concessions to builders and local officials would never pass the Senate.
Pinsky, a Prince George's County Democrat, is one of the legislature's most ardent environmental advocates. He was not party to the negotiations, which were guided by Del. Maggie McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat who is chairwoman of the House Environemental Matters Committee. Pinsky says he's troubled by the changes in the rules.
"I'm not real comfortable with them," Pinsky said. While developers had raised some valid concerns, he said he was concerned that the deal went too far. "As it is now, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night."
Though he said he was not prepared to "blow up the agreement," Pinsky said he wants more information and possibly some tweaks to the rule changes.
Of particular concern, he said, was how many development projects in the planning pipeline would be allowed to go forward under the deal using less stringent runoff controls, with up to seven years to actually begin construction.
"Are there 75 or 7,500?" he asked. "I believe in data-driven decision-making. Here we are making a major change in the regulations and no one has a clue on how it changes things on the ground. It astounds me."
McIntosh, who had pressed for a compromise to avoid a legislative battle over the storm-water rules, said she hoped that Wilson, the environment secretary, would be able to provide Pinsky with satisfactory answers to his questions. She said she hoped that Pinsky would allow the rules to come before the committee. Asked if the deal could be revised without falling apart, she said, "It depends on what he's talking about."
(Baltimore Sun file photo by Glenn Fawcett)
Comments
I find it amazing, considering the economic importance of the Chesapeake Bay to our state that delegates and senators who seem intent on completing its assassination remain in office. Eastern Shore people, and everyone who enjoys (or would like to enjoy) seafood or vacationing on the Bay, you need to rise up en mass and demand that your representatives represent YOUR interests and not those of a wealthy class of citizens who make tremendous amounts of money from development while foisting the environmental damage they cause off onto the rest of us. Three years ago the Legislature seemed to come to its senses: now it's time to implement the necessary measures. No weakening, no postponing. Nature does not play these political games and is not swayed by financial campaign contributions. We ignore its laws at our peril and at enormous public expense.
Posted by: Anne | March 19, 2010 2:24 PM
Hey, who stole my clean water?
by Fred Tutman, Patuxent Riverkeeper and Neal Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, Audubon Naturalist Society
March 19, 2010
Well, the answer to that question is developers, municipal lobbyists, politicians and others caught in the sway of big money construction and development interests in Maryland. The Stormwater Management Act of 2007 is progressive legislation passed overwhelmingly by the Maryland General Assembly. After three years of public meetings held by the Maryland Department of the Environment around the state, and drafting and vetting of rules in a publicly-transparent process, the law was set to go into effect in May of this year. Now, at virtually the last minute, building and construction interests and their municipal allies have raised a hue and cry against the Stormwater Act, claiming it would "kill" good projects and put an end to Smart Growth. In response, legislative leaders ordered MDE to clarify its regulations; when that effort was deemed insufficient, House Environmental Matters Committee Chair Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore) convened a closed-door negotiation to try to "fix the stormwater regulations."
The agreement is now in the form of emergency regulations before the "Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review," whose Senate chair is Paul Pinsky (D-Prince George's). To hedge their bets, House leadership on March 17 also re-entered the "Holmes Bill," (H.B.1125), now revised to contain the same agreement. The Holmes bill would amend -- and weaken-- the Stormwater Management Act, not simply change the regulations. In either form - emergency regulations or a revamped Holmes bill -the deal's net effect is to relax new construction standards aimed at protecting water quality, so that developers who are unable to meet the standards in the "2007 Act" can just opt out --by getting what in essence amounts to a political fix to exempt them from doing the right thing.
When President Obama issued an executive order in May 2009 ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up the Chesapeake, the order contained two major exceptions: national security and threats to human life. Not one word excused Maryland officials and businesses from following the demands of the Clean Water Act, the 1972 federal legislation that is the basis for all our efforts . "Progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay Š will depend on the support of State and local governments" and the "enterprise of the private sector," the order states. Webster's definition of enterprise is: "readiness to engage in daring action."
While developers are making specious claims that stormwater regulations will cost them thousands of jobs, they are ignoring the multi-million-dollar bill for the damage done by poorly-controlled polluted runoff from their developments - damage that has destroyed thousands of Maryland jobs and cost us millions in lost revenues. Polluted stormwater runoff is the only source of the Chesapeake Bay's pollution that is increasing - contributing an ever-greater portion of the Bay's decline. The Bay's crab population has plummeted from 791 million in 1990 to 260 million in 2007. This declining harvest has caused a 40 percent drop since 1998 in the number of crabbing-related jobs, costing Maryland and Virginia $640 million between 1998 and 2006, according to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
The intent and letter of the Stormwater Management Act is to mandate that all development projects incorporate rain gardens, green roofs, street trees, or other means to absorb and lessen the onslaught of stormwater, “to the maximum extent practicable.” The law requires that both greenfield and redevelopment projects use Environmental Site Design methods to slow down, spread out, and soak in stormwater. If developers now designing new projects escape Environmental Site Design requirements, their sites will have to be retrofitted later for improved controls- at up to five times the cost of designing "green" elements into a project's blueprint, and with the public, rather than the builder, picking up the tab for the retrofits. The environmental community has been told by House leadership to sit back and "wait and see" to determine if these weakened standards will truly be bad for the environment. What do you think? Legislation that will further hasten the growth of the Bay's dead zones is being spirited through the legislature, before the new stormwater law was given a chance to be implemented without alterations.
Senator Pinsky has been outspoken in his opposition to the weakening of requirements under the Stormwater Management Act, and we applaud his courage in standing up for clean water. If citizens don't speak out, and a bad stormwater bill goes forward, the industry that wants to evade environmental accountability makes lots of money, and the rest of us will be paying for years through degraded fisheries, muddy waters, leaking sewer pipes and poisoned beaches. Exactly how does one undo the damage done to irreplaceable resources? The environment is not a commodity with which you can barter. Urban rivers, including the Patuxent and Anacostia, will bear the brunt of these relaxed anti-pollution rules. And a bargain is not a bargain at all, if one gets less than you are entitled to. Don't let them steal your clean water!
Posted by: Neal Fitzpatrick | March 19, 2010 3:03 PM
When you talk to them you find that many builders and developers either WANT to push the envelope on sustainability or at least are quite wiling to do better and implement tested solutions. BUT they need and ask for a "level playing field" . So the LACK of strong regulations such as would be promoted by the stormwater act of 2007 is really a barrier to those developers who want to do better. THey really are not represented by those who negotiated the delays and are pushing for weakening.
Posted by: Kathy Michels | March 21, 2010 11:55 PM
STOP THE DIRTY WATER BILL! For updates see: http://www.anacostiaws.org/news/blogs/action-alert-ask-your-anacostia-senators-stand-strong-clean-water
Posted by: Kathy | April 2, 2010 12:35 AM