3.18.2008

By RICHARD COLBURN

(Editor’s Note: Sen. Richard Colburn, R- Dist. 37, is a Maryland state senator representing Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot and Wicomico counties. This is an edited excerpt of a press release his office distributed on Feb. 15.)

When a law isn’t well enforced, the first impulse of elected officials is to add more laws that won’t be enforced either.
I believe that is the case with the state’s Critical Area Law, which regulates construction within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and primarily bans it within 100 feet.
Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration is proposing legal changes that would make it even tougher to build on these waterfront lots. So, what does that say about the likelihood that new provisions will be enforced?
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation asked Gov. O’Malley to overhaul the variance process, improve enforcement and increase fines. Not only would the state’s Critical Areas Commission be given authority to write new regulations, but another CBF proposal would tighten the variance process so that exceptions are no longer the rule.
Under the new bill, the no disturbance shoreline buffer would be changed from 100 feet to 300 feet, and it would require that counties give new developments more scrutiny.
The additional setback is going to negatively affect people whose waterfront property does not extend that far back from the water.
It is a property rights issue that legislators will have to examine closely.
We must take time before changing an important law that was a result of many controversial compromises 24 years ago.
Again, before making changes, we must first ascertain whether the issue is really one of the enforcement of the original bill which, in my opinion, should be the focus.
Senate Bill 844 (Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Protection Program — Administrative and Enforcement Provisions) has many potential problems.
The program itself is a combination of environmental policy and land planning.
These matters currently are regulated by the Departments of the Environment (MDE) and State Planning.
Giving the Critical Areas Commission regulatory power would overlap, cause conflict, and complicate authority and jurisdiction of State Planning and MDE as well as local land use authority.
CAC does not have the sufficient staff with the necessary expertise to establish, enforce, and interpret land use and environmental programs.
Senate Bill 844 would require a significant increase in staff that would duplicate what State Planning, MDE, and local land use personnel are already doing.
The way the bill is written, the program administration and enforcement would no longer be science-based.
There are other concerns that the bill would completely do away with rip-rap in most areas and only allow marshes with sand and marsh plants.
This would make projects two and a half to three times more expensive for the property owner.