Isle of Wight: Coal Plant Is STILL Lousy Idea
Bill Would Ban Spreading of Manure on Farm Fields in Fall and Winter

The Real 'War on Rural Maryland'

Rich Josephson, Maryland Department of PlanningWhat is the “War on Rural Maryland?”

Opponents of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s efforts to control suburban sprawl use the term to describe his proposed legislation to ban the construction of large subdivisions on septic systems in some rural areas.

But supporters of the governor’s planning efforts say the real “War on Rural Maryland” is something else.  It’s the march of cookie-cutter developments with huge lawns (like the one above) across farmland, forests, and streams that feed the Chesapeake Bay.

“What a ‘War on Rural Maryland’ really is is having sprawling landscapes that threaten agribusiness, threaten the local rivers and bays, and pull growth out of great towns like Cambridge, Centerville, Salisbury and Berlin,” said Maryland Planning Secretary Richard Hall.  “That’s a war on rural Maryland.”

Another perspective is taken by opponents of O’Malley’s Senate Bill 236 and House Bill 445, the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012. The foes of the bill include Richard Rothchild, a Carroll County Commissioner, who testified last week before a hearing of the senate Education, Health and Environment Committee on the legislation.

“A manufactured crisis, which exaggerates the effect that septic systems have on the Bay, is being used as a justification for a tyrannical power grab by Annapolis,” Rothchild said.“This is absolutely a manifest component of the war on rural Maryland.”

O’Malley appeared before the committee to make the case for limiting the construction of large subdivisions on septic in rural farming areas called “tier four” areas in a revised version of legislation proposed last year.

“The bottom line is that, by their very design, septic systems are intended to leak nitrogen into our Bay, and into our water tables,” O’Malley testified.

“Without this bill, 120,000 new septic systems will pump 2.5 million pounds of nitrogen into surface water by 2035.  Total nitrogen pollution from septic systems will increase by 29 percent, and septic households will produce 10 times more nitrogen than houses on upgraded sewer,” O’Malley said.  “With this bill, we can avoid …the installation of 50,000 new septic systems (and) prevent as much as 1.1 million pounds of nitrogen from being pumped into these waters.”

A house with an individual septic tank to handle its waste releases 6 to 10 times the nitrogen water pollution as a house served by a sewage treatment plant, according to state figures. Septic housing also gobbles up eight times the land as more compact housing on sewer systems, O’Malley said.

Maryland passed a “smart growth” law 15 years ago. But it failed to stop sprawl, because it did not have an enforcement mechanism. Now Governor O’Malley is trying to use restrictions on septic systems as a way to add teeth to the policy.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation supports O’Malley’s septic bill, but believes it could be strengthened by requiring all new construction on septic systems to use the best available technology to reduce nitrogen pollution.

“Over the last 10 years, two thirds of the land lost to development in Maryland has been farmland and forests,” according to written testimony  CBF gave to the committee.  “This type of growth is damaging to Maryland’s economy and environment and threatens the substantial effort and investment being made to meet Maryland’s share of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay.”

Although the governor says he’s trying to save farmland for farmers, he’s running into some opposition from farm representatives.

Valerie Connelly, Government Relations Director for the Maryland Farm Bureau, said limiting the ability of farmers to subdivide their land for development is like taking money out of their bank accounts.

“You know, farmers don’t have 401 K plans, they don’t have retirement systems,” Connelly said. “Their retirement plan is whether they sell their land or sell a lot or can somehow eke out saving a little money as they go.”

More logical, Connelly said, is to increase state funding for voluntary state programs that pay farmers to put their land into conservation easements that prevent development.

To see the front lines of the battle, I took a drive with Rich Josephson, a director at the Maryland Department of Planning (pictured at top).

We cruised through farmland distinctive to Southern Maryland, with old tobacco barns, wood fences, grazing sheep, and trees shading the winding road.

But then we turned into a subdivision built on septic systems with wide lawns, cul-de-sacs, and no sidewalks. We got out near a “dead end” sign.  Josephson explained why all these beige boxes plopped down in farmland are a road to nowhere.

“You could find these subdivisions not just in Maryland, you could find these types of subdivisions in Anywhere, USA,” Josephson said. “They don’t really build the character of a community. We have existing communities that do have character, and rather than concentrating efforts to enhance that character -– we end up with more of these,” he said, gazing across a vast and empty lawn.

How to prevent the loss of more farmland to sprawl like this?

Readers in Maryland should call or email their state senators and representatives and urge them to support Senate Bill 236 and House Bill 445 and stop the real assault on rural Maryland: poorly-planned developments on antiquated septic systems.

By Tom Pelton

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

UPDATE: On March 23, 2012, The Washington Post reported that Governor O'Malley's administation had agreed to weaken the bill, and take away proposed new state authority to reign in sprawl, following complains from county governments that they did't want to give up power over land-use decisions. The Post reported: "The retreat marked the second time in two years that O’Malley had weakened the proposal to try to win approval from the state legislature, which is controlled by Democrats."


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

We are all in agreement that we should protect farmland and the Chesapeake Bay. The question is who should pay for it? The Governor's approach lacks compensation to farmers for giving up the life savings that they hold as equity in their farms. In a sense punishing the very farmers who have not sold to developers.

Each $1,000,000 in equity seized from a farm family represents only 50 cents per family, if shared by all Maryland families. If we are all in this together, as the Governor claims, why should a farm family bare 2 million times the cost?

No matter how you cut it, the Governor's bill is just not fair!

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that farmland carries any perpetual guarantee to the owner by the state or counties in regards to zoning density. These claims of property rights remind of an investor in the stock market who stupidly believes that their investment in the stock market carries some sort of guaranteed rate of return -- this is a fantasy not based in reality.

2. I want developers and the farmers to reimburse me for the lower home values, higher taxes, and damaged Chesapeake Bay that is the direct result of sprawl development in the rural areas of Maryland.

O'Malley's proposed bill does allow farmers to subdivide their land somewhat even in the most protected "tier four" areas -- for example, to allow five lots and five houses for family members or others.

But it would not allow more than that.

The MD Department of Planning reports that their examination of property values in counties with strong zoning laws against subdividing farmland (for example, Baltimore County) are not lower than counties with lax zoning laws. So it is not clear that property values will be hurt.

TB; Actually I would say that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects property rights. Mr Pelton's assertion that that reviews of property values in low vs high density counties showing no difference in values cannot stand up to peer review. Like so many statistics from environmentalists they are suspect at best. Certainly if there was no loss of value to the farmer in his land with the loss of development rights then why would the state even consider paying a landowner to sell his development rights.

As far as TB being reimbursed for lower values, higher taxes, and a damaged Chesapeake Bay. Get real. First, where do you live. I'll bet that at some point the land you're on was once a farm. Lower values? Last time I looked, the higher density areas of the western shore far outstripped the land values of the Eastern Shore. Finally, if low density development should reimburse you for damage to the Bay, then you should reimburse me for the flush tax I've had to pay to fix your sewage treatment plants and come to think of it for the 500,000,000 gallons of overflow into the Bay and it's tributaries from those same waste water treatment plants.

I don't want to simply jump on Bill's ban-wagon but he has it exactly right!

TB: If you contend that you should be reimbursed by rural developers, and I don't necessarily disagree, shouldn't you be reimbursed by urban developers as well??? Nitrogen is Nitrogen! Is the Govenor's position of polluting the Bay from the urban area really a better approach?

And Tom, although I believe your concerns are sincere you have to realize that MDP's analysis is strictly baloney. They know, I know, and the unbiased fiscal analysts got it right, there is a loss of value from restricting septic systems! See for yourself.

If you don't believe me, ask your CBF scientists if they can confirm MDP's contention that the Nitrogen from septic systems is ten time worse than houses on WWTS!

Please let me and your readers know what you find out!

I already know the answer.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)