With critics saying that waterfront development is chewing away at the Chesapeake Bay's remaining vitality, the O'Malley administration is seeking to tighten long-standing restrictions on shoreline construction, setting the stage for what could be one of the bigger legislative fights in Annapolis this year.

The administration plans to introduce a bill today that would beef up the state's 24-year-old Critical Area Law to strengthen development restrictions along the bay and its tributaries.

The measure is likely to have enthusiastic backing from environmental advocates but faces resistance from builders and local officials who worry that the state is trying to usurp their traditional control over land use.

Considered pioneering when it was adopted in 1984 as part of the state's first organized effort to save the Chesapeake from decline, the law is now widely considered to be inadequate for protecting water quality and wildlife from harm done by continuing waterfront development.

"There's a lot that doesn't work, and this bill is a first attempt to go to the biggest issues, where the bleeding is the greatest," said Margaret McHale, chairwoman of the Critical Area Commission, a 21-member state body that oversees local enforcement of the law.

The measure would push development, swimming pools and landscaping farther back from the water's edge, expanding the no-disturbance shoreline buffer required in the law from 100 feet to 300 feet.

It also would crack down on the exemptions from building restrictions that local officials frequently grant to contractors and homeowners. A recent analysis of enforcement by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation found that four bayfront counties granted variances from the law 75 percent of the time, sometimes after the fact to landowners who didn't ask before disturbing the shoreline.

Another change would require local officials to subject proposed new waterfront developments to more scrutiny before approving them.

Builders are expected to oppose at least some aspects of the bill.

"We believe all the authority and criteria they need to protect the bay are already in the law," said Kathleen M. Mahoney, lobbyist for the Maryland State Builders Association. "They just need to be enforced better."

Pushing construction farther back from the shoreline would reduce the number of homes that could be built on waterfront tracts, she predicted. Mahoney questioned whether there was scientific evidence to justify increasing the setback.

"What's the end result of that?" she asked. "Does it simply stop growth, or does it better protect the resource?"

Local officials' fears

David Bliden, executive director of the Maryland Association of Counties, said local officials want help enforcing the law but are concerned with having the state second-guess their decisions.

The administration's move to tighten the law regulating waterfront growth was inspired by Gov. Martin O'Malley's dismay last year over the 1,350-home Four Seasons development proposed on Kent Island.

Though nearly entirely within the 1,000-foot swath of waterfront governed by the Critical Area Law, the project had been approved by local and state officials. The Board of Public Works, of which O'Malley is a member, derailed the project by denying it a key wetland permit, a denial being challenged in court by the developer.

Natural Resources Secretary John R. Griffin, who helped craft the Critical Area Law under Gov. Harry R. Hughes, said he believes it has curtailed shoreline development but that its effectiveness has been undermined over the years by inconsistent local enforcement.

Keen debate expected

Legislative leaders say they expect an intense debate, given the scale of the changes the administration is seeking in a law that attempts to balance environmental protection with private property rights.

"This is the heavy lifting for this session," said Del. Maggie L. McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat who chairs the House Environmental Matters Committee.

McIntosh said she worries that the 300-foot setback in the bill isn't enough, and she said she wants to hear from scientists about whether the bay needs an even larger buffer from development.

McHale said she doesn't regard increased state oversight as a power play against developers or local officials but as an attempt to respond to changing circumstances, such as the threat of climate change and new research showing the harm done by runoff from development.

"It's a very different place we're in in 2008 as we were in 1984," she said. "We have to respond. We can't just twiddle our thumbs and wait for those forces to really move in and change our land."

tim.wheeler@baltsun.com