The Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com

Md. Expands Environment Goals as Va. Retrenches

By Anita Huslin
Tuesday, January 16, 2001

Environmentalists and conservationists are lining up in Annapolis and Richmond at the start of the legislative sessions to push for more money to preserve land, plant more oysters in the Chesapeake Bay and crack down on water polluters.

But an inspection of the agendas of each governor and key lawmakers illuminates the states' vastly different approaches toward protecting and restoring the environment.

On the one hand is Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat with a national reputation as an advocate of curbing sprawl, who has proposed spending $145 million on land conservation and $2.5 million on oyster restoration projects.

On the other is Gov. James S. Gilmore III (R), who is building a legacy as Virginia's premier tax-cutter and is proposing a $13.6 million reduction in spending on the environment.

Overlaying these differences is the pressure both states are under to meet the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 2000 cleanup agreement. Signed last summer by leaders of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, the ambitious, 10-year pact is aimed at curbing sprawl, restoring wetlands and replenishing oyster beds, among other environmental goals.

Holding the states to that agreement is environmental groups' top priority, particularly in Virginia, where environmentalists say Gilmore's campaign to fund a $1-billion-a-year phaseout of the car tax threatens to undermine the state's commitment to the effort.

"We're not going to make the progress we need to and certainly not going to be able to fulfill the commitment we made to our sister states without ratcheting up the efforts significantly," said Chuck Epes, a spokesman for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Virginia office.

Gilmore has called for a $6.2 million reduction for the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation, $1.75 million less for local soil and water conservation districts and a $52,500 cut in state oyster money.

He is also looking for $1 million in savings from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission as part of a 9 percent reduction in spending by several state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

"The things that we're doing are not and should not be regarded as a sign of hostility to these programs," said John Paul Woodley Jr., Gilmore's secretary of natural resources. "The priorities . . . that came to the fore in developing this budget together with the somewhat disappointing revenue picture we've had over past year have resulted in difficult choices having to be made."

Private interests and the federal and local governments have historically shouldered many of the costs of environmental and conservation initiatives in Virginia. Woodley said the state would look for other ways to assist such efforts.

By contrast, Glendening, who detailed his environmental agenda yesterday at an environmental summit in Annapolis, is making land conservation a cornerstone of his session priorities. He is pledging $145 million to buy and conserve land over the next five years.

"My intent is to lead by example," Glendening said after the summit. "We can't solve these issues alone. I certainly hope our neighbors will also."

While environmentalists offered high praise for Glendening's package, they said they still believe the state can do more to prevent the spread of nutrient and sediment pollution in the bay by banning the open-water disposal of dredge material. Last summer, Glendening killed a proposal to dump dredged sediment at a site north of the Chesapeake Bay bridge, but the chances of an outright ban getting far this session are slim.

"We've made the decision to spend our political capital on open-space preservation," Glendening said. "We can only get so much done through [the legislature] at one time."

On water quality, Maryland lawmakers this session hope to force the state Department of Environment to move more quickly to prevent companies from polluting while their permits are being renewed and require wastewater plants to report sewage overflows to the state as soon as they occur.

"I think it should be enshrined in the law that when a sewage overflow occurs, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the public are notified," said state Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery).

In both states, environmentalists and watermen will be watching the legislatures for new restrictions on commercial and recreational crabbers. Maryland lawmakers also intend to try to gain regulatory control over the oil pipelines within its boundaries.

That measure is intended to give the state greater regulatory oversight of oil companies in the wake of last summer's accident in southern Prince George's County, where more than 100,000 gallons of fuel oil spilled from a cracked pipe at Potomac Electric Power Co.'s generating plant.

"We don't know yet what caused that spill, but we do know that the pipelines are not inspected as often as they probably ought to be, given the fragility of the Chesapeake and its importance to the economy and heritage of the region," Frosh said.

Environmentally-minded Virginia lawmakers said they will fight to restore funding for bay-related efforts and push to dedicate a portion of the state's recordation tax to land conservation.

"Right now, we're putting about $7.5 million of general fund money into those programs, but to reach the Chesapeake 2000 program goals, we need $40 to $50 million a year," said Virginia Sen. Bill Bolling (R-Hanover), who chairs the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the legislative wing of the bay cleanup effort.

Although a higher proportion of bay watershed lands in Virginia already have been protected from development than in Maryland, Virginia still has more than 533,000 acres to preserve to meet the bay agreement and traditionally spends less on conservation than Maryland, according to recent studies.

Virginia legislators also will try to restore funding to their state's water quality improvement fund, which provides money to improve sewage treatment plants, helps farmers reduce nutrients running off their fields and pays for stream restorations. Currently, the fund gets 10 percent of the budget surplus, and that portion has dwindled in the past year to about $2.7 million.

To make up for the huge drop, the legislature's Committee for the Future of Virginia's Environment has authorized a $28.8 million budget amendment to restore the fund to its historic average of $31 million.

"That's very important because there are a lot of projects in the pipeline we'd like to fund, and if we go from a lot of money to virtually no money, some of those projects are going to dry up," Bolling said.

© 2001 The Washington Post