The O'Malley administration began its push yesterday for an ambitious overhaul of restrictions on building near the Chesapeake Bay, enlisting the father of the state's bay cleanup effort to warn lawmakers that action is needed to save the troubled estuary.
But it was clear at a Senate hearing yesterday that the governor's broad Critical Area reform proposal faces a stiff challenge from local officials and real estate interests who said they worry it would grant the state too much authority and infringe on waterfront landowners' property rights.
Former Gov. Harry R. Hughes told members of the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee that the 24-year-old Critical Area law limiting bay-shore development was a linchpin of the bay restoration effort begun under his administration. But the law has failed to protect the water and wildlife because of inconsistent local enforcement, he said, so state "leadership" is needed to assert more control.
"Time is really running out on us," the 81-year-old former governor said.
Despite major expenditures on pollution cleanup, Hughes said, the inability to limit disturbance of the land along the water's edge has left the bay in some respects worse off than when he launched the state's restoration campaign.
O'Malley's bill would grant greater authority to the 29- member state commission that oversees development within the 1,000-foot strip of bay shore known as "critical area" because of its role as a filter protecting water and wildlife from pollution washing off the land.
The measure would impose stricter penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violating the law. It also would give the commission final say over whether local officials could grant property owners "variances" or waivers from restrictions on the use of waterfront land. Contractors who violate the law could have their licenses suspended or revoked.
"We have a whole heckuva lot of enforcement issues," said Margaret G. McHale, chairwoman of the commission, pointing to the frequency with which local officials have granted property owners "after-the-fact" approval for violations of development curbs.
She acknowledged that some of the bill's provisions are controversial. But she said that she believed some concerns are based on confusion about the legislation, and that most objections could be resolved by tweaking the measure.
Among the misread provisions, she said, was the administration's proposal to expand from 100 feet to 300 feet the "buffer" strip of land closest to the water, where most building or clearing of trees and brush is prohibited. The expanded buffer would apply only where housing developments are to be built along previously undisturbed shoreline, she said.
The measure has strong backing from environmental groups, which have been highly critical of how the state's bay-shore counties have enforced the law.
But county officials reject the criticisms and say the bill represents an unwarranted usurpation of local land-use authority by the state. They say they could support the bill only if it is substantially modified.
"Anne Arundel County has a very aggressive enforcement program," said Betty Dixon, the county director of inspections and permits.
Though more requests for variances are granted than denied, the permission usually comes with conditions requiring landowners to mitigate their disturbance of the shoreline, she said.
Although environmentalists have pointed to Anne Arundel as one of the counties where violations are often overlooked, Dixon said the county has grown increasingly strict over the past decade. It now follows a "zero tolerance" policy under County Executive John R. Leopold, she said, that prompted local officials to fine an elderly woman for killing poison ivy along her shoreline - a penalty thrown out in court when the woman appealed.
County officials also want to limit the commission's ability under the bill to issue regulations because all changes in waterfront development restrictions are subject to legislative approval.
"We don't want it to be an invitation to legislate," said David S. Bliden, executive director of the Maryland Association of Counties.
Spokesmen for the Maryland Association of Realtors said they oppose the bill, in part because it would call for retroactive changes in how undeveloped building lots are drawn. They also oppose giving inspectors the right to go on private land to check reports of violations.
tim.wheeler@baltsun.com