Hogan Rolls Back O'Malley Era Septic Regs

And the Baltimore Sun is unhappy: The septic backslide

Gov. Larry Hogan's recent announcement that he intends to loosen Maryland's requirements for newly-installed septic systems is a worrisome development. While septic tanks and drainage fields are hardly the primary source of pollution in Maryland waterways, such regulatory backtracking raises an uncomfortable question: If rural homeowners and developers are get a free pass, who will pay in the end?
. . .
Four years ago, then-Gov. Martin O'Malley introduced regulations requiring all new septic systems to use the "best available technology" (BAT), meaning they would extract more nitrogen from the effluent (using such devices as pumps or grinders to encourage beneficial bacterial growth).

What Governor Hogan and the state Department of the Environment have proposed is to require BAT technology only in the "critical areas" immediately adjacent to the Chesapeake and the state's coastal bays or in large systems. Why? Because BAT septic systems are costly — as much as $10,000 to $20,000 more than a standard septic system — and rural counties have been complaining for years about how the rules have deterred growth.

But how important is the degree of cleanup that one will get from the old regulations:

Admittedly, such changes won't single-handedly decide the fate of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, not when septic pollution accounts for perhaps 5 percent of the overall problem. But the danger is that the backsliding will continue. What will local governments whine about next? Sediment controls? The flush tax? Upgrading sewage treatment plants?

5%? That's noise and rounding error in the nutrient models for the Bay. Kill all rural growth for a maybe 2.5% reduction? Baltimore, clean up your own shit before you come after ours.

Calvert Country Hates the Bay, Too

An article in the local e-rag that explains various Southern Maryland county governments feelings on Governor O'Malley's new septic bill.  I was particularly taken by the response from Calvert County, where I live:

In Calvert County, where there is little public sewer outside of its seven town centers, officials have deferred action on its tier maps until the end of the legislative session to see if lawmakers make any changes to the bill.

Under a draft plan, Tiers I and II would include only 5 percent of Calvert, while Tiers III and IV would make up 45 and 47 percent, respectively. Under the plan, only one home would be allowed for every 10.6 acres in Tier IV. There are 90 landowners in Tier IV whose land would lose the potential for a combined 1,012 lots, according to a status report prepared for the delegation.

As a result, the bill will further disincentivize Calvert’s transferable development rights program, which already took a hit during the recession due to declining property values, said Chuck Johnston, director of the Calvert County Department of Community Planning and Building.

“Calvert County has a 40-year history of land preservation through its groundbreaking [TDR] program,” the county wrote in the status report. “Property owners in Calvert have entered into this program in good faith and rely on the program remaining strong and viable. Limits on development in Tier IV have undercut this viability.”

In the word of Otter from Animal House: "You fucked up, you trusted us."

Just because we passed a law that you counted on, doesn't mean the state can't come along and change that on a whim.

State Not So Happy With Charles County Plans

Agencies condemn Charles County planning: 3 of 4 agencies rip comp plan update 

Three Maryland government agencies have commented on the draft update of the Charles County Comprehensive Plan, the county’s chief planning document, with the Maryland Department of Planning calling the document “the most drastic policy reversal in a comprehensive plan that this agency has ever seen.” ...

In a Feb. 4 letter and report addressed to county government, MDP lists concerns, including that the plan “promote[s] large lot sprawl development,” endangering “the County’s rural character and environmentally sensitive lands,” documents state.

Damn Darn rubes intend on using their land the way they want to rather than the way we want them to.

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources was equally harsh, calling the draft “inconsistent with 12 visions,” including infrastructure development, environmental protection and resource conservation, “adopted by the Maryland General Assembly in 2012,” and with other county and state planning goals.

 They have 12 visions? Maybe they should see someone about that.

The Maryland Department of the Environment piled on in its own Jan. 22 response, with comments asserting that “the Plan does not address water quality at all,” noting groundwater issues in some places and “disinfection byproducts” in parts of Waldorf served by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, issues that could need to remedied soon to comply with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

You mean the big city's sewage problems are becoming a problem to the poor country folk to their south?  Whoda thunk.

MDE also questioned the county’s ability to dispose properly of sewage generated by new development and to protect “high quality waters,” including Mattawoman Creek and Zekiah Swamp Run, suggesting that the county use zoning and other ordinances to direct development away from sensitive watersheds.

More state attempts to force growth into the cities where it increases the dependency of the people forced to move to the cities as well as the political power of the reigning party there. 

Septic Repeal Bill Squashed

Committee Rejects Bill That Sparked Tractor Protest

The House Environmental Matters Committee has rejected a bill that would have repealed limits on new septic systems in Maryland. The limits, enacted by the Maryland General Assembly last year, had been the focus of a demonstration last week in Annapolis.

About a dozen farmers drove their tractors around the Maryland State House.The farmers say the limits restrict their property rights including any decision to sell their land for housing development.

Environmentalists say the septic limits will reduce water pollution that will go into the Chesapeake Bay.

Both can be true simultaneously. Remember, septic accounts for approximately 7% of the nitrogen pollution to Bay.  Is it worth restricting land owners freedom to make room for new home over this relatively small source?

While a corresponding Senate bill remains on the books, this pretty much kills prospect for significantly changing the law this year.  Given Maryland's increasing urban outlook, it may well be the end of attempts to reform this bill for the foreseeable future.

Baltimore Unhappy with Rural Freedom

The Baltimore Sun is up in arms that farmers are up in arms protesting the new Maryland State septic bill:

Some farmers may protest, but Maryland's year-old law restricting large-scale use of septic systems is needed more than ever

In Cecil and Frederick counties, for instance, it's clear that local government is minimally invested in agricultural preservation and unlikely to deny most any rural landowners the opportunity to turn their land into a subdivision. The Maryland Department of Planning last month notified the governing commissioners in both counties that their plans come up short.

No, they're not at all "invested" in agricultural preservation; like a sensible people, they are invested in doing what's best for them and their constituents, and their families, and the septic bill is a restriction on their ability to make the most choices regarding what to do with their property for their own good.  Astonishingly, they resent being told by Baltimore (and the other urban centers) that they can't have the benefits of development that the urban centers have.

Howard County Executive Ken Ulman recently issued the first veto of his six years in office when the County Council produced a septics ordinance that similarly failed to pass environmental muster. How did the council in such a progressive jurisdiction fail? Chiefly by unwisely capitulating to some farmers who were unhappy to be losing potential development rights — and the possibility that they could one day sell their land to commercial interests.

And you say it's not a taking?

But here's the problem with that kind of let-them-build thinking. It's simply not in the public interest to offer up every bit of undeveloped rural land for a future housing tract. Not for taxpayers who can't afford it, not for agriculture that will get squeezed out, and certainly not for the environment and any hope of preserving clean air and water. What's needed is "smart" growth with more development steered toward cities and towns served by water and sewer systems, and where roads, schools and public transportation are already in place.

See, it's all for the cities and towns.  Many of us like to live in rural and suburban areas; the cities are essentially passing laws saying "OK, enough of that; the rest of you have live in the city with the rest of us."

Some counties clearly don't like having a mandate imposed on them by state government, particularly when it comes to planning and zoning. But it's not as if all rural communities are up in arms. Many have recognized the importance of agricultural preservation, have followed the septics law faithfully and have taken steps to protect their open spaces.

Yes, it's quite clear.  What if the countryside managed to pass a law that said the cities could only use water in proportion to the area of the city to the whole state?  Would they resent having those limits forced on them?  Or how about if the countryside somehow embargoed energy streaming into the city from coal fired power plants, nuke plants, hydroelectric dams, etc, which are all chiefly sited in rural areas?  Cities could use all the wind and solar power they can build inside the city limits.  Maybe even build their own coal fired plant.  (Baltimore actually does have a couple; not enough to run the whole city though).

If some rural areas want to follow the restrictions on septic, fine; that's their choice. But it doesn't need to be forced on all by people who won't suffer the consequences.

What's particularly troubling about the protests is that the same counties that are failing to protect their land have also been drawn into those phony-baloney "war on rural counties" protests of recent years that see every State House decision as a threat. From lawsuits aimed at environmental initiatives to "forums" attacking climate change science, certain conservative Republicans appear to be banking on a populist, know-nothing message of victimization to win voter support.

You're not doing a good job of convincing me, in fact, it's rather the other way; you make me want to resist all the more.