Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Editorial

Bay restoration: One thing Marylanders agree on

Look who's smiling now?

Even as the Maryland General Assembly was heading toward a budgetary train wreck last week, there was one unlikely group that had trouble believing its good fortune coming out of the 90-day session — the state's environmental community.

Not only did Maryland's Chesapeake Bay lobby push through a doubling of the flush tax, but it managed to persuade lawmakers to require the state's largest jurisdictions to impose new fees that will be invested in storm water runoff controls. Add to that passage of Gov.Martin O'Malley's plan to limit large residential developments that require septic systems, and 2012 will be remembered as a banner year for those dedicated to clean water.

There are several lessons in this. The first is the public's willingness to support measures that would benefit the nation's largest estuary.

After all, this was not a banner year for raising revenue of most any kind. Even Mr. O'Malley's own pro-environment proposal to encourage development of an offshore wind farm to generate electricity for the state died for the second year in a row, despite its modest cost to consumers. Yet environmentalists succeeded in passing two "money" bills — the flush tax, which will cost homeowners $2.50 more each month on their sewage bills, and the storm water fee, the cost of which will eventually be set by local government.

The difference? It may have something to do with the public's strong desire to see sewage treatment plants upgraded and to create cleaner streams and other waterways around Baltimore and the suburban counties. Those aren't just goals for groups like Environment Maryland, the Maryland League of Conservation Voters or the Chesapeake Bay Foundation but ones that have broad public appeal.

It probably also doesn't hurt that both measures will help local governments to meet federal pollution control standards. Without these new sources of tax dollars, cash-strapped counties and towns would be unlikely to adhere to terms of the so-called "pollution diet" requirements backed by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

But just as critical to the success of the pro-Chesapeake measures was the willingness of advocates to compromise. Each of the bills started out much stronger. The flush tax, for instance, would have eventually been tripled, not doubled. The storm water management tax would have applied to rural counties, not just the largest. The septic bill may have been watered down the most — to the point where the state won't have much legal authority.

Some may see the glass as half empty, but that's not how the legislative process works. Those who aren't willing to compromise seldom get anything done (Congress is offering prime examples of that on a regular basis). Those who do make deals with their opponents can come back the next year or the year after and push for stronger laws.

How might that work in this case? Next year, you can bet that environmentalists will try to close a loophole that exempts state and local governments from storm water regulations and fees. They'll also likely try to strengthen the septic law. As for the flush tax? Expect another push in a few years when the need for further sewage treatment plant upgrades arises.

Even in the best of years, advocating for a cleaner Chesapeake Bay is no easy task. Supporters often find themselves at loggerheads with powerful groups ranging from agribusiness to manufacturing, large-scale developers and local government. But this year, it helped that the environmental community in Annapolis seemed united in their cause and focused on those three major bills.

All of which should give Marylanders hope that the restoration of the state's most important natural resource is far from a lost cause. Make no mistake, there will be much more to be done, particularly in the difficult areas of land use planning and controlling runoff from farms and streets, to ensure a brighter future for the bay and its tributaries.

But to pass fee increases and new environmental regulations at a time when politicians are balking at both and lawmakers can't even approve a proper budget? That's truly impressive. It's something those running for office this year and in 2014 may want to consider: In good times or bad, Marylanders are willing to rally around their beloved Chesapeake Bay.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Cleaner waters mean safer children
    Cleaner waters mean safer children

    A key consideration has always been missing from the debate over funding for cleaning up stormwater damaged waterways and the "rain tax" ("Backtracking on the bay," Jan. 23). All Maryland homes are but a short walk from the nearest waterway. For many, the nearest waterway is a small headwater...

  • Big ships on the Chesapeake Bay follow strict environmental safety rules
    Big ships on the Chesapeake Bay follow strict environmental safety rules

    Please allow me to correct some of the points letter writer Bernard Helinski recently made regarding ships' ballast water polluting the Chesapeake Bay ("Ship ballast a major source of pollution," Jan. 7).

  • The Hogan environmental agenda
    The Hogan environmental agenda

    In appointing former Harford County Executive David Craig to head Maryland's planning department last week, Gov.-elect Larry Hogan acknowledged he's sensitive to criticism of anti-sprawl policies collectively known as "smart growth." He promised to "take a look at" the complaints of local...

  • Ship ballast a major source of pollution
    Ship ballast a major source of pollution

    The Chesapeake Bay Foundation was gracious in giving the polluted waters of the Chesapeake Bay a D-plus. It should have been an F-minus ("Bay grade remains D+ despite improvements," Jan. 5). A major culprit involved with the bay's increased pollution is the shipping industry.

  • Big Chicken must help pay for bay cleanup
    Big Chicken must help pay for bay cleanup

    Dan Rodricks was right on the mark that Maryland's next governor needs to address pollution from agriculture and "consider some common-sense ideas for dealing with the phosphorous runoff." ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13).

  • Excess phosphorous is killing the bay
    Excess phosphorous is killing the bay

    In the days following Dan Rodricks' column "Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor" (Dec. 13), your paper has been flooded with letters opposing the phosphorus management tool (PMT) regulations and opposing Mr. Rodricks position. On the surface it would seem that both letters in...

  • Mr. Hogan picks the wrong 'first fight'
    Mr. Hogan picks the wrong 'first fight'

    When farmers' own records show they are spreading far more phosphorus on their fields than is needed to fertilize their crops and studies have demonstrated conclusively that nutrient runoff from those same fields is killing the Chesapeake Bay, attention must be paid. Yet Maryland's incoming...

  • The truth about poultry and pollution
    The truth about poultry and pollution

    A letter published in The Sun on Dec. 19, "Rodricks wrong on Bay pollution," asserted that a report by the Environmental Integrity Project that columnist Dan Rodricks quoted was wrong because it stated that poultry farmers on Maryland's Eastern Shore are polluting the Chesapeake Bay by...

Comments
Loading