TV Watch: MPT special on fraying Critical Area
"Weary Shoreline," a documentary about the failure to enforce Maryland's Critical Area law, airs at 9 p.m. Wednesday night. It's a troubling report for anyone who cares about Chesapeake Bay. It shows how waterfront homeowners and builders are chewing away at the narrow strip of shore that acts as a buffer and filter for the pollution running off driveways, streets, lawns and roofs. It also documents how little local officials have done about it.
As the viewer rides along on boats with riverkeepers, or flies with the camera over the bay, you're struck by just how built up the shoreline is, especially in Anne Arundel County. You see the large house, complete with private lighthouse, that the owner of Little Island erected without first getting permits -- and has been allowed to keep. You also see neighboring Dobbins Island, which another owner is trying to develop, even though the sliver of land is in the 1,000 foot strip regulated by the 1984 Critical Area law.
Riverkeepers and other activists are the viewers' guides to the "death of a thousand cuts" that waterfront living is causing to the bay. But the special also gives some property owners their say. In some cases, the damage seems marginal, as homeowners in long-established communities question why they can't clear vines and brush on their land or build a carport or pool near the water, since their neighbors already have done it. Where do you draw the line, they ask?
In other places, where the shore is still relatively untouched, the issue is clearer, and the stakes higher. Dennis Whigham, a scientist with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, explains that studies have found it doesn't take much development to degrade the water and the plants and critters in it. Disturb as little as 3 or 4 percent of the land draining into a particular creek or cove, he says, and you'll start to see declines.
If I have one criticism of the documentary, I wish it had spent more time walking viewers through the harm done by development. The cumulative impact of many small individual insults is a hard concept for the general public to grasp.
Still, it's a valuable and timely report. Gov. Martin O'Malley has asked the General Assembly to strengthen state oversight under the Critical Area law. The governor's bill comes up for a hearing Thursday in the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee.
Among other things, it would tighten up on the "variances" that local officials often grant to property owners seeking approval - after the fact, in some cases - to build in the 100-foot strip closest to the water, which is supposed to be left untouched. It would also expand that no-disturbance buffer zone from 100 feet to 300 feet, and subject builders to possible loss of their license if they knowingly violate the law.
You can read more about the problems with the law, in this piece in The Sun that Rona Kobell and I did. Or this story in The Washington Post. Then tune in to MPT Wednesday night to see what the case is for reform.
in growth/land use
| Permalink
| Comments (7)
I report on the environment and Chesapeake Bay. A native of West Virginia, I have focused mainly on Maryland's environment since moving here in 1983. Along the way, I've crewed aboard a skipjack in the bay, canoed under city streets up the Jones Fall from the Inner Harbor, and gone deep underground in a western Maryland coal mine. Recently, I have been covering the growth and development transforming the landscape. I love seafood, rambles in the country and good stories. I hope to share some here.
Comments
You know why we don't talk about developers? They are potential sponsors. It's a very simple equation.
Posted by: MPT Employee | February 26, 2008 11:00 AM
Tim
I am pleased that the Critical Area Program is getting more attention in the Sun and elsewhere- and for that matter the fact that other environmental issues are getting front page attention is fantastic.
However, I hope that either the program to air on MPT or the Sun will give a better description as to what the program does and does not do. As a former Critical Area Planner, I have yet to see an article that, in my opinion, accurately captures the basic elements of the program.
For instance, you refer to waterfront homeowners above who would like to install a pool or other structure between their home and the water as many of their neighbors have done. Quite often, this type of project would be permissable due to what are called "Buffer Exempt Areas" or "Buffer Management Areas." These are areas which were identified in 1984 as waterfront areas which were historically impacted by development. These areas were mapped separately from those waterfront areas which were undisturbed at that time (and were thus subject to the Buffer regulations). So these historically disturbed areas were granted more leeway in how they could comply with the regulations.
My point is that there are many, many ins and outs of the Critical Area Program and to simply state that the first 100 feet from the water is undisturbable does not accurately describe the way the program was created. I would be happy to help you or anyone filter through the regulations to craft an accurate picture of what the program is and can do. Hopefully by fully explaining the program, we can garner more attention to the issue, as well as to increase peoples understanding of environmental plannings goals. By increasing knowledge, I believe that we can increase participation and reduce opposition to these types of regulations.
Thanks again for paying attention to this issue and for all the time that you and others spend on the Bay and the environment.
Posted by: Nick | February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
"MPT Employee" is clearly misinformed and apparently didn't read Tim Wheeler's blog entry or watch the program. If this individual had, it would have been blatantly obvious to this person that "Weary Shoreline" discusses the problems created by developers and others with respect to the state's critical areas. In spite of what this "employee" alleges, MPT never has and never will steer away from issues of public concern for fear of offending potential underwriters.
Posted by: Mike Golden | February 28, 2008 10:31 AM
Just watched the program last night. I have to commend MPT for covering this issue in more depth than i have seen anywhere else. So for that Thanks!
However, (and I know that I am nit-picking as always) I felt that the program did not fully explain the structure, both legally and policy-wise, of the Critical Area Program.
They did not mention the three land use classifications of Intensely Developed Areas, Resource Conservation Areas, and Limited Development Areas, nor did they detail the impervious surface limitations found in the LDA and RCA, they did not address the 10% pollutant removal rule, forest conservation policies, habitat protection areas (besides the 100 foot Buffer), and many other issues.
But, as I said, I am nitpicking- although I feel that it does a small disservice to all of us by introducing the problems of the program before we are presented with the details of what the program does.
I was contacted by the University of Maryland group during their investigation into the Critical Area Program. It was good to see the results of that study made public. In my old jurisdiction, I was the only inspector for Critical Area issues (although we did employ three other general zoning inspectors) and during the interview with UM, I made it a point to emphasize how limited our field investigations had to be due to budget constraints.
So hopefully, this publicity will generate the community concern necessary to allocate adequate funding for Critical Area inspections.
One thing that I wish the program addressed more thoroughly is case law on takings, private property rights, and environmental controls. Planners must work within the law, and unfortunatley, sometimes the law does not conform to what we know or feel is the right way to address these issues. So maybe this will begin a new discussion of what property rights are and how to responsibly use land so that we reduce the conflict between the two needs.
But overall it was an excellent program and Im appreciative of MPT and their efforts to put this out- and I also appreciate that this blog is what alerted me to the program to begin with! So cheers all around.
Posted by: Nick | February 28, 2008 1:18 PM
Will someone send a critical area inspector to view the stormwater run off created by the county that's filled in our creek so no one can get thier boats in and out? Has anyone viewed the Superfund sites, state sites, etc. on the water and viewed the timeline for those cleanups? Industry is contaiminating our waters people, not private home owners! Maybe someone is trying to replant thier bank to improve it and they don't get a permit. In the middle of the project, county inspectors put a work stop on the project....the bank sits bare, run off is created because it takes so long to go through all the red tape. I'm not advocating breaking the law, but If property owners had more rights on thier own property to make improvements with LESS interferance from regulators, we'd all be better off. Please, spend my property tax money (and we pay more than others) going after the real culprits, Industry.
Posted by: Darla Schaefer | April 3, 2008 2:37 PM
Good article, and very interesting, keep up the promising work
----------------------------
Lauraj
http://showsdirect.tv - Watch Free TV Shows With Just One Click!
Posted by: Laura | April 15, 2008 4:33 AM
One thing that I wish the program addressed more thoroughly is case law on takings, private property rights, and environmental controls. Planners must work within the law, and unfortunatley, sometimes the law does not conform to what we know or feel is the right way to address these issues. So maybe this will begin a new discussion of what property rights are and how to responsibly use land so that we reduce the conflict between the two needs.
Posted by: battery pack | August 26, 2008 9:18 PM