Political News: Anne Arundel Delegation Deconstructs General Assembly's Environmental Agenda

By Joseph Patrick Bulko

A plethora of environmental bills were introduced during the 2008 General Assembly session and Gov. Martin O'Malley signed more than 20 of them into law. Among the legislation were initiatives to improve the Chesapeake Bay and related areas; promote energy efficiency; and give the state's building industry a good, solid nudge toward environmentally friendly construction.
"We have to do whatever we can locally for the health of the environment for the state and our children," said Del. Pam Beidle (D-32), on the duty of the state to address environmental issues. "We can't just sit on our hands. It's got to start somewhere."

The Bay and Global Warming
One of the key bay bills, the Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund, focuses on "not-point source pollution," Beidle said. "It covers areas beyond the Flush Tax." She explained that projects dealing with runoff from roads, farms and storm water could be funded through this legislation. This year, due to the budget crunch, only $25 million of the annual $50 million will be allocated.
The funds enable the state to increase its ability to meet the goals outlined in Chesapeake 2000, an agreement among Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources.
"The bill has a lot of ways to hold funding accountable," she said. "There is a group of five people making decisions as grants are applied for. They are awarded based on the outcome to the bay."
The controversial Global Warming Solutions Act sets statewide carbon reduction caps of 25% by 2020 and 90% by 2050. "Some people think it's an unmeetable requirement, but we need to be making some effort," Beidle said.
The bill died in the House Economic Matters Committee after strong opposition by members of the steel workers union, who were concerned that the required emissions cutbacks would effectively shut down the local steel industry.
"Employees were actively lobbying against it," she continued. "They were very concerned about their jobs."
Another (slight) hit against the environment was the passage of the Phosphorous Reduction bill, which delayed, by six months, the implementation of the phosphorous ban passed in 2007. The concern is that this delay will add another 7.5 tons of phosphorous to Maryland's waterways.
Beidle explained that the bill simply pushes the implementation date back to the date in the original 2007 House bill, reversing changes made in the Senate.
"The bill primarily affects Proctor & Gamble," she said. "The company wanted to put implementation back to the original date so they would have time to make the necessary changes for compliance. We felt this was a reasonable request."

The ICC's Environmental Impact
Several bills impeding progress on the Inter-County Connector (ICC) were defeated. Together, they would have eliminated funding for the roadway, required a study on the ICC's impacts on global warming and halted construction while the impacts were being studied.
Environmental concerns include "more auto-related emissions that ultimately add to the pollutants in the bay" and also the impacts on trees, wetlands and other natural resources, Beidle said.
She offered an alternative use of the ICC funding. "What if that money were spent for mass transit, which is better, faster, cleaner? We need to spend money smarter."
The anti-ICC legislation died "because the administration was opposed to the bills," she said. "The property has been bought and the [project] design is in place. [The feeling is that] it has to be finished. It's too far along to abort. [The process] began during the Ehrlich Administration."
Beidle added that there was not a big turnout of people opposing the bill. In government, a loud public outcry is often needed to sway the legislature. Lack of such opposition implies agreement with the proposal.
As a business owner, Beidle understands, first-hand, the impact of legislation on small businesses; she is particularly sensitive to the effect of environmental laws on the local economy.
"We have to find the balance between people, business, the environment and the economy," she said. "Ideally, I'd like to do what's right for the environment, but we have to consider [potential] loss of jobs and pushing business out of the state. Finding the balance is really important."

Living Shorelines, Property Rights
"Environmental law is very important to me," said Del. Don Dwyer (R-31), "[although] much of environmental law is a violation of the rights of property owners. We need reasonable balance to the invasion of private property enforcement and implementation of environmental law."
Dwyer readily acknowledged that individuals should be held responsible for the willful violation and degradation of the environment.
The Living Shorelines bill, which requires the use of nonstructural (living) shoreline stabilization methods as opposed to hard methods such as riprap and bulkheads, is touted as an important part of adapting to sea level rise.
The problem with this bill, he said, is that it reverses the policy of the past 15 years or so, which required the use of bulkheads or stone revetment at the shoreline, typically at the base of a hill or cliff, to stop erosion because other methods proved ineffective.
By enacting this legislation, "we're failing to look at the history or our own research," he said. "[Natural means] didn't work then. I don't think it will work [now]. The stone does work. You need stone or a man-made structure at the bottom of the slope [at the water line] to stop erosion."
This is a big issue for Dwyer, because 3,500 of his constituents live on the water. "Erosion is a very serious problem," he said.
Dwyer opposes the ICC, but not on environmental grounds. Again, his concern involves property rights - "taking of property for the ICC, eminent domain takeovers," he explained. "There are many legitimate reasons for the state to acquire land from citizens, but there are a lot of property rights issues [concerning the ICC]." Dwyer is concerned about how property owners will be compensated and whether the state can afford this expensive roadway.
He also does "not support the Global Warming scare," he said, in assessing the failed Global Warming Solutions Act, while also referencing the well-publicized global cooling scare from more than three decades ago.
"Where is the deep freeze that was predicted in the 1970s?" Dwyer said. "I don't believe the evidence is substantial enough to warrant the state to spend the money necessary to [address the issue]," especially considering the current tight financial situation.