You guys confuse me. Even before the new blogger push and opinions, due to the internal culture at The Sun, you guys were balls to the wall DEM. The first time I ever saw a legislator on PBS looking out for the MD environment, the Bay, was Ehrlich.

Since O'Malley has been elected what has happened? Bay funding was cut in half, recently more, the Federal Government deemed the state un-fit to look after it, because we don't care enough. We can all argue over the ICC.

These legislators have been in power for more than 40 years. In that time I and my parents have seen the depletion of MD's natural resources. In 20 years, the things that I used to enjoy as a kid I can no longer. I can't catch crabs or fish in the places to

I can't do anything because the local media is weak. I am frequently asked, since I care, if the media has some sort of reciprocity with the gov...

You are a sold out enterprise looking for money. Could you do things that thwart and promote common good, morality, sure! But you don't you inspire weakness and make it credible. That is what The Sun does. You are too worried about keeping a corporate job and benefits.

If you are the best we can do for future generations, it is sad. You know you can do more.

TW: Mr. Dunn - You're entitled to your own opinion about The Sun and media coverage of the Bay, but not to your own facts. Though there have been some budget cuts this year, Bay cleanup funding overall has not been cut in half. Perhaps you were thinking of the Bay Trust Fund, created in 2007 to deal with polluted runoff, which has never been funded at its original $50 million level? It's been trimmed to less than half its intended funding, but it's just one small pot of money dedicated to bay restoration.

Storm water from existing development is a great detriment to the Bay. We need to do what works not what sounds like a good idea. The Bay is a shared resource, the cost to clean it up must be shared as well. Not just dumped on development and redevelopment. That means dumping the cost on our children for our "sins of the past" development policies.

I support the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 and its intent. If we want to clean up our streams, rivers and the Bay, we need to reduce and slow down stormwater flows.

Taking this action to improve the Bay has a cost. Apparently, developers don't want to pay that cost for any projects in the pipeline--and want to avoid it on as many projects as possible in the future. They want to delay action on cleaning our streams, rivers and the Bay because it's too costly now.

The question is, when do we take action? If not now, when? There will always be a cost. Marylanders want a clean environment and Bay, so we're going to have to pay the cost. Let's kill these emergency regulations, support the original law and get on with the task of cleaning up our waters. There's no time like the present.

Tim, the Bay Trust Fund had over $40 M come into this year and the Governor acted as though he was doing the environmental community a favor by offering up $20 M. That's nuts. Between raiding the Trust Fund and Program Open Space the Governor and legislature have really done a number on the bay this year.

Although at least one comment above suggests that only Republicans care about the Bay (an unusual sentiment), if we are to have any chance at saving the Bay we've got to get beyond partisan politics. The truth is that all parties will have to come together to get the job done. The legislature made a significant move forward with the Stormwater Management Act of 2007. We've got to stay the course.

Jack, the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 does virtually nothing for the problems that we already have and is primarily aimed at minimizing the impacts of new development. That having been said, it was weakened in important ways this year. Even with no new development, the Bay would still be in horrible shape, and the state is not devoting sufficient resources to getting it back to health.