Few powers are held more dearly by county and municipal government than the authority to decide matters of planning and zoning. For the most part, this is a sensible arrangement. When voters don't like the kind of development being allowed in their local community, they can kick out the politicians responsible.
But the continued degradation of the Chesapeake Bay suggests that this system is not enough to protect the state's most precious natural resource. The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law, the then-groundbreaking legislation approved 24 years ago to protect land 1,000 feet from tidal waters from development, needs a serious overhaul. Local enforcement has simply not been adequate.
Legislation submitted last week by Gov. Martin O'Malley brings much-needed clarity to the law, along with higher standards. For starters, it would update decades-old maps defining the critical area and incorporate it into local comprehensive plans.
It would also extend the buffer zone - the area where development is effectively prohibited - from 100 feet to 300 feet in new subdivisions.
What's likely to irk many town and county officials, however, is that the governor's proposal gives greater authority to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission to intervene when violations have taken place. The meaning of this is clear: Too many offenders have gotten away with little more than a wrist slap.
In what cases might the commission step in? The sprawling Four Seasons development on Kent Island, a controversial project that won local approval although it was almost entirely in the critical area, is widely viewed as the poster child for the ineffectiveness of the past.
The wrist-slapping example most often cited is Anne Arundel County's handling of Dobbins Island, where a developer built a mini-mansion, faux lighthouse and pool without any permission from authorities whatsoever. The result? No tear-down notice. No loss of home building license. No fine proportionate to such a serious misdeed.
Yet the administration's bill is far from a cure-all. It would do nothing to stop the issuance of variances, which remains largely the authority of county government. That's a problem just as worrisome as lax enforcement. The measure is also likely to run into opposition not only from local elected officials who prefer to be the ones making land-use decisions but also from builders and others who make a handsome living from shoreline construction.
They can't be allowed to derail the effort. What Mr. O'Malley has proposed is at least a good start toward correcting a long-standing problem. Development on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries causes too much pollution for the state not to intervene.