In a debate that mirrors one playing out in Congress, lawmakers in Annapolis are considering boosting Maryland's business climate by reining in state regulators.
Nine bills have been introduced that would overhaul the state's rule-making process, slow the proliferation of red tape, give legislators more control and limit the ability of state regulators to go beyond what is required by federal law.
One bill would even make the state compensate landowners if any law, regulation or government action reduces property value by 25 percent or $10,000, whichever is smaller.
Unlike the "Contract with America" signed by congressional Republicans, there is no overarching political blueprint for regulatory reform being followed in Annapolis. But some bills seem inspired by, if not copied from, that broadside.
The parallel has not been lost on environmentalists, who note that environmental regulations are targeted by some legislation.
"It's the 'Contract on Maryland,' " said Dru Schmitt Perkins, state director of Clean Water Action.
She noted that statehouses throughout the country are seeing a similar backlash against regulation, but in Maryland the protection of unique resources like the Chesapeake Bay is at stake. Passage of the legislation "would absolutely destroy the state's regulatory process," she said.
Not surprisingly, business groups have a different view. They contend that the regulatory climate in Maryland has discouraged economic growth. They point out that several of the measures they seek in Annapolis already have been adopted by other states.
"In the businessman's eyes, regulators have run amok," said Arthur Stowe, spokesman for the state's printing industry.
He cited a recent example: A small print shop in Annapolis, which has five employees, received 150 pages of regulations and forms to report any hazardous wastes generated. "That company produces less hazardous waste than you produce at home each year," Mr. Stowe asserted.
Noting that Maryland has trailed other states in creating and keeping jobs, Del. Donald B. Elliott contended that to attract business, "something must be done about the regulatory climate."
"The pendulum has swung too far," the Carroll County Republican said at a House Environmental Matters Committee hearing last week on a bill he sponsored to limit environmental regulations.
The measure would bar the state Department of the Environment from adopting any regulation more stringent than required under federal law, unless the agency could demonstrate that the environmental benefits of a stricter rule outweighed the costs to affected businesses.
Two broader bills have been introduced by Del. John S. Arnick, a Dundalk Democrat. One would prohibit stricter state rules unless the agency finds "a compelling public interest" in exceeding federal requirements. The other would require public hearings before such rules can be adopted.
Other legislation would:
* Give a joint House-Senate committee veto authority over state regulations, either by law or constitutional amendment.
* Require regulators to give better advance notice of pending rules and to consult with key legislative committees before issuing them.
* Protect businesses from being fined or prosecuted for pollution violations if the firms find and report problems to the state after conducting internal "environmental audits" of their operations.
* Require the state to compensate landowners if rules diminish their property value. This "private property rights" bill introduced by Sen. Richard F. Colburn, a Republican representing the Eastern Shore, is similar to Republican legislation due for a vote soon in the House of Representatives.
Environmentalists are lining up against the bills in Annapolis and predict that Gov. Parris N. Glendening would veto the most far-reaching measures.
Mr. Glendening has pledged to improve Maryland's business climate by streamlining some regulations. But he also has said he believes strong environmental protection can coexist with economic development, and he has rejected business calls for Maryland to adopt no regulations stricter than what federal law requires.
Business advocates say they believe the governor would sign the legislation, because it does not absolutely prohibit stricter regulations. "We're not saying you can't exceed federal standards, but if you do, justify it," said Ernie Kent, vice president of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce.
"Regulation of industrial pollution in Maryland has reached the point where we need to stop and re-evaluate our policy," said Carolyn T. Burridge, lobbyist for the Chemical Industry Council.
Factories have sharply reduced their emissions into the state's air and water, she said, but the number of state environmental rules that exceed federal requirements discourages manufacturers from moving to Maryland or expanding existing plants.
State officials acknowledge that some reform may be warranted but say the changes proposed in the legislation are too sweeping.
But the bills limiting environmental rules would prevent the state from acting on its own to protect unique resources, such as the bay, he contended, because there are no universally accepted criteria for attaching a dollars-and-cents value to regulations designed to protect the environment.
State officials and environmentalists also oppose the bill granting businesses protection from government sanctions if the firms voluntarily disclose violations.
Many businesses already perform internal environmental audits, he said, but many others do not -- for fear the documents will be used by government prosecutors.
The Maryland bill would make it a misdemeanor for any state employee to divulge information from a company audit that has been turned over to the state, and it would allow a company to sue any person who discloses information gleaned from an audit.
The bill would have a "chilling effect" on citizen activists, said Ann Powers, vice president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
"You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a pretty draconian law," Mr. Nelson said. He said the state environmental agency never has used information from a company's environmental audit in deciding whether to impose penalties.