Gov to launch septic pollution study
Thwarted in his bid for legislation to curb development relying on septic systems, Gov. Martin O'Malley is scheduled this morning (April 18) to announce the formation of a task force to study how much the systems pollute the Chesapeake Bay.
Joining O'Malley at Arlington Echo Outdoor Education Center in Millersville for the announcement will be Del. Maggie McIntosh, D-Baltimore city, Sen. Paul Pinsky, D-Prince George's County, and Del. Steve Lafferty, D-Baltimore County.
Pinsky and Lafferty were cosponsors of the "Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2011, which died in committee under a hail of criticism from farmers and lawmakers and local officials in rural areas. It would have banned major new housing developments using conventional septic systems, and required less polluting advanced septic systems in all smaller developments.
McIntosh, who heads the House Environmental Matters Committee, prompted O'Malley to seek a study after tabling his bill. In doing so, she echoed concerns of rural lawmakers that the septic ban would have a disproportionate impact on their communities.
O'Malley is to sign an executive order forming a task force to study the issue, as McIntosh had urged him to do. According to a media advisory from the governor's office, the order will "establish a framework to examine the extent to which septic tanks on major developments pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries" and "inform" new legislation to be introduced next year.
The task force has its work cut out for it, as some refuse to acknowledge that conventional septic systems systems are a source of the Chesapeake's water woes at all, much less a significant and growing one.
But the criticism that apparently gave pause to McIntosh, who otherwise supports a curb on septics, was that it would stifle growth in rural areas. It wasn't enough, apparently, that a few rural counties have already effectively moved away from large-scale devleopment on septics - for other reasons - without throttling their growth.
So it seems the task force may have to come up with more than information. Instead, it may need to forge a political compromise to quell or overcome rural fears that curbs on septic development will kill their growth. One suggestion heard: soften the the impact of such a ban by phasing it in. Another: couple it with an infusion of funds for infrastructure upgrades in and around rural towns and villages, where growth is supposedly encouraged under Maryland's Smart Growth law.
(New home on septic in Baltimore County. Baltimore Sun photo by Kim Hairston)







Comments
How pathetic! It's 2011, and all they do is study pollution. O'Malley and the Dems run the show but continue to fail to do anything to clean the Bay.
Posted by: DisappointedDemocrat | April 18, 2011 11:35 AM
Then what would you suggest they do?
Posted by: MikeMunchin | April 18, 2011 11:59 AM
This article is misleading - first - the bill is about controlling growth, not cleaning the bay. The Govenor admitted this when he introduced the bill. Growth should be controlled by down-zoning, not septic systems. But our elected officials will not downzone rural areas because it would get them elected out of office.Second, there are no counties that have stoped large developements on septic systems - in fact the opposite is true. A few Counties have banned the developemnt of large subdivisions on SHARED septic systems - which is exactly what this bill is promoting.
Posted by: Get all the facts | April 18, 2011 4:17 PM
They push this but waste tons of money studying the same problem over and over. 90% of the funds pay PhDs and researchers while 10% goes into action. Oyster baskets are proven filters and they ignore small vendors that could put out 100s per year for less than one of their recurring studies.
How about we take a few years for action then study it again to see what improvements were made.
I support mandatory thresholds such a 50% must be spent on cleanup activities therefore we don just spend good money after bad. It is time that we get focused on results and not the feel goo green studies.
Posted by: Chuck | April 18, 2011 4:38 PM