Builders, environmentalists and local officials seem to have settled their differences over Maryland's new requirements for reducing polluted runoff from development projects.
As reported in The Baltimore Sun today, a deal's been struck that avoids a fight in Annapolis over legislative attempts to weaken or delay the state's storm-water pollution regulations. Hearings scheduled Wednesday in the House Environmental Matters Committee on bills backed by builders and county and municipal officials have been canceled, in favor of emergency regulations the state Department of the Environment is crafting to address their concerns with the runoff rules that were issued last year.
The rules, written to carry out a storm-water law adopted in 2007, would require builders to leave more of their sites unpaved so rainfall would soak into the ground, discouraging the current practice of collecting runoff in large ponds or underground tanks. The aim of the law and the regulations is to keep storm-water from washing fertilizer, animal waste, oil and other pollution off developed land into nearby streams and rivers. Such runoff is a significant and growing threat to the Chesapeake Bay, officials have said.
But builders had complained that it was unfair to impose the new rules, which take effect May 4, on projects that are already in the pipeline for approval by county or municipal governments. They contended that they had invested hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in planning and constructing those projects, and some had even put in the ponds and other pollution controls large enough to handle storm runoff from homes and buildings yet to be constructed. They argued that the added cost could stifle construction at a time when Maryland's economy is struggling.
Local officials likewise objected that the rules' emphasis on reducing pavement to let rainfall soak into the ground could increase the costs of redevelopment. That would undermine the state's Smart Growth policies, they argued, which were meant to encourage more compact development.
Environmentalists and state officials had countered that the rules were needed and not that onerous, but critics appeared to have made inroads in Annnapolis. Del. Maggie McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat and powerful chairwoman of the House Environmental Matters Committee, was among those who'd expressed concerns, and she said she'd heard from many of her colleagues as well.
Under the deal, builders whose projects already have preliminary approval from local governments could avoid having to meet the new rules. No one knows how many projects would get to go forward with less effective pollution controls, but environmentalists succeeded in putting some time limits on the "grandfathering." Those projects would have to get final local government approval by May 2013 and begin construction by 2017, or else meet the new runoff control requirements.
Environmentalists said they felt compelled to give builders more time to meet the new rules, to avoid a fight in Annapolis that they couldn't be sure of winning. But they felt better about it, having put some limits on it.
On redevelopment, local officials would be given limited leeway to relax the runoff rules for projects being built in designated growth areas that are served by public water and sewer. One of the points of contention was over redevelopment on relatively open sites where 40 percent or less of the land was covered by pavement or buildings. Under the new rules, those would have been forced to meet much stiffer runoff control standards than more densely built-up sites. The newly announced deal eases the requirements for such projects to retain their rainfall runoff - though they would still have to take steps to filter out pollutants.
That compromise could mean continuing erosion of nearby streams, but environmentalists said they felt pressured to make some concessions to avoid pushing development into "green fields," where there would be more open land to meet the storm-water control requirements. They pledged to keep an eye on the flexibility given local officials and to try to tighten the regulations if streams continue to degrade.