CHANGE MY LOCATION
O’Malley stays green, signs new measures
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: Annapolis
Annapolis (Map, News) - Gov. Martin O’Malley kept up the Earth Day theme he’s been advocating this week by signing more than 20 new laws that are designed to protect the Chesapeake Bay, curb development of its shoreline, reduce energy consumption, encourage conservation and promote the construction of environmentally friendly buildings.
“This is a huge, huge, huge year for the environment, and some of these bills were two, three years in the works,” said House Environmental Matters Committee Chairwoman Maggie McIntosh, who was credited with shepherding much of this legislation to passage.
The measures, most of them introduced at O’Malley’s request, were among more than 200 bills he signed into law on Thursday.
Among the Bay bills was legislation specifying how $25 million in the new 2010 Trust Fund will be used to reduce runoff pollution from farms and commercial development.
That is only half of what was originally proposed, but Natural Resources Secretary John Griffin said, “I doubt if we could have spent it all” in the first year of the new effort.
Lawmakers made major changes in the Critical Areas law regulating development on the shores of the Bay and its tributaries.
While some of the proposed changes were watered down, Attorney General Doug Gansler said, “It was a huge step forward,” including the increases in fines that he has promised to enforce more strictly.
The statute of limitations for prosecution of environmental violations has also been extended from one year to three years from the point at which the infraction is first noticed.
After several years of trying to make the state construct more energy- and water-saving buildings, two delegates were happy to see the governor adopt their proposal.
The law will now require most buildings constructed or renovated with state funds to meet environmental standards, including new schools. Del. Dan Morhaim, D-Baltimore County, said the private sector was already ahead of the government in such buildings.
Another bill allocated fees utility companies will pay for carbon emissions to promote energy conservation, including providing such services to low-income people.
Utilities will also have to get more of their electricity from renewable resources, such as wind or solar power.
Senate Republican Whip Allan Kittleman of Howard County complained that those bills “will cause ratepayers to pay more money.”
The energy bills included the enabling legislation resolving the lawsuit between the state and Constellation Energy.
llazarick@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:00 PM MST on Mon., Apr. 28, 2008 re: "O’Malley stays green, signs new measures"
Report as inappropriate
12:41 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 25, 2008
re: "O’Malley stays green, signs new measures"
Report as inappropriate
8:15 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 25, 2008
re: "O’Malley stays green, signs new measures"
Report as inappropriate
6:32 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 23, 2008
re: "Can the Chesapeake Bay survive the garbage choking Maryland's rivers?"
Report as inappropriate
7:29 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 22, 2008
re: "Can the Chesapeake Bay survive the garbage choking Maryland's rivers?"
Report as inappropriate
2:23 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 22, 2008
re: "Can the Chesapeake Bay survive the garbage choking Maryland's rivers?"
Report as inappropriate
11:10 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 22, 2008
re: "Can the Chesapeake Bay survive the garbage choking Maryland's rivers?"
Report as inappropriate
10:55 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 22, 2008
re: "Can the Chesapeake Bay survive the garbage choking Maryland's rivers?"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
How about charging these people that live on the water some more money called taxes? I cant get near the water everyday like they do and catch those crabs free because no one is watching there piers. Yea. how about charging them boat owners some more money with them polluting the water with there gas mowers. I lucky I can find a nice spot to fish and I have to pay for my licence. Charge them for the filty/dirty bay.
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Whip Allan Kittleman says it will cost the rate payers more. So it might, buig deal, i'd rather pay a little more than pay huge expenses down the road to clean all the crap up thats left behing from power plants. Stuff like coal tar is nasty and i'm sure there are worse by products. Lets just ticket those littering? and if it's your responsibility to clear snow from your sidewalk in the einter, than so be it trash during the rest of the year.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
A bottle bill will do nothing to fix the ignorant masses that have absolutely no qualms about littering whatsoever. One of the things that flabbergasted me when I moved here from out west in 1991 was how cavalier people are with garbage and cigarette butts. I was speaking to a lady from Ethiopia not long ago who told me that she gets embarrassed when her family visits her from there and comments about how dirty this city is. That says volumes to me. I am not always a Sheila fan, but I do respect that she is trying to address this problem.
2 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Maybe we can pass the Bottle Bill next year so that there is a greater incentive for people to pick up litter and then the streams wouldn't look so bad...
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Thanks for raising public awareness of the problems of our streams and Patapsco River, as well as the rest of the Chesapeake Bay watershed! And thanks for getting the facts correct! Betsy McMillion, Stream Watch Director Friends of Patapsco Valley & Heritage Greenway
6 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
A giraffe dies said:
To a large extent a part of the problem is the residents' attitude towards littering and illegal dumping. I believe there is a state law against littering with fines attached, however I do not think the police is enforcing it in Baltimore City. Not a day goes by where I don't see at least one car window roll down and a bag of fast food trash is dumped on the street or see alleys with bags of trash piled. If the city really wants to increase revenues, a law should be passed making littering a crime with a $500 penalty for each occurence. Then, instead of setting up traffic traps all over town, the police can just issue littering tickets. If the problem doesn't stop, at least Baltimore's finances will be in the positive without taxing everyone exorbitantly.
4 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Reader said:
What ever you say 10:55, You are the man!
3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Tammy Newcomer said:
Thanks for such a comprehensive piece on the complex issues surrounding water quality in the Bay region. The statistics at the end are particularly enlightening; Our population size has not increased as dramatically as the opulence of our lifestyles. The American Dream of a big house in the suburbs (with easy access to roads and strip malls) is having a detrimental affect on water quality and general quality of life. More and more former forests and farmlands are being paved over and as a result the waterways are being eroded and citizens are wasting more time sitting in traffic. I hope this article will serve as food for thought on changing the way we grow. We need to curtail sprawl fueled by roads like the planned ICC and instead, focus on improving pre-existing urban areas so they are safer, more attractive places to live. Urban redevelopment is an important strategy for protecting the headwater forests that protect the water quality of everyone living within our watersheds.
9 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree