September 14 - NAHB responds to Mr. Weingrad's September 12 article "Sprawl Poisons the Bay."

September 14, 2011

Dear Mr. Weingrad:

Thank you for your article titled “Sprawl Poisons the Bay.”  As you rightly point out, a great challenge is before us to right the environmental damage done to Chesapeake Bay and to find a way to ensure that future growth does not further damage the Bay’s water quality.

The National Association of Home Builders is working to assist home builders to play their part in the Bay’s recovery and to help foster the water quality credit trading programs that we believe are critical to lower the cost of improving water quality and, at the same time, allow farmers to play an active role in cleaning up the Bay.

I must correct one statement in your article, where you assert that “From 1990 to 2000, the population grew by 8 percent, while impervious surfaces – paving and roofs grew by a whopping 41 percent.”  Staff of the Chesapeake Bay Program now agree that the oft-quoted relationship of impervious surfaces growing at a rate 5 times the growth of population during 1990 to 2000 is incorrect.

[Click here for] a 2010 study done by Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. (WSSI) that examines the claim that during 1990 – 2000 population grew by 8%, while impervious surfaces grew by 41% in the Bay watershed.  The study resulted from builder’s perceptions that the population to impervious surfaces relationship did not seem to agree with building practices used in Maryland and other Bay states during the last decade.  WSSI found that population actually grew by 10.3% during that decade and impervious surfaces grew by 14.2%, so the relationship is not 1:5, but, in fact about 1:1.4.

The WSSI results were presented to staff of the Chesapeake Bay Program last year in a face-to-face meeting and, after their review, EPA accepted the findings of the WSSI study and agreed to revise their modeling to reflect true relationship, and, in the future, not to claim that impervious pavements grew five times faster than population growth in the watershed during 1990 – 2000.

I also agree with your statement that difficult measures will be necessary to restore the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.   Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this email.

Glynn Rountree           

GLYNN ROUNTREE

Environmental Policy Analyst

Water and Wetlands Department

National Association of Home Builders

1201 15th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

D 202 266 8662

F 202 266 8056 T 800 368 5242 x8662

grountree@nahb.com

www.nahb.org

If you are looking for information concerning the Governor's Septic Task Force, click the link below to go the the MD Department of Planning's website.  They will post meeting minutes, agenda's, presentations, etc. on there.

http://www.mdp.state.md.us/YourPart/septicsTF/septicsTaskForce.shtml

July, 2011 - The Maryland Department of Planning has distributed a draft statewide plan, known as Plan MD, and asked for formal comments by September 1.  The Sustainable Growth Commission created a workgroup on Plan MD led by Commission member Gerrit Knaap to review and make recommendations on the draft to MDP.  Click the link below to view the recommendations.  HBAM will also provide formal comments to the Department.

Click Here to View the Recommendations

July, 2011 - The Maryland Department of Environment proposed revisions to the GP as a result of changes made to the EPA Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG’s) made by EPA in 2010.  The formal adoption of Maryland’s revisions were put on hold after portions of the ELG’s were remanded to EPA after a Court found fault in the means of determination of a 280 unit turbidity limit.  We anticipate that EPA will re-propose a similar or identical turbidity limit by February 2012.  MDE will likely propose revisions to Maryland’s GP consistent with the turbidity limit on early spring.  A new revised GP will likely be in place by early 2013. 

Effective July 1, 2011, the WMA will be utilizing new well forms to transition from the current NAD 27 coordinate system to the use of WGS 84.  The new forms can be obtained through local Approving Authorities and MDE on an incremental basis only.  MDE advises that until the current stock of forms are depleted, you can use the existing forms provided that you supply the same information that is required on the new forms. 

The new form incorporates changes to the State of Maryland Application for Permit to Drill Well (Green Form), the State of Maryland Well Completion Report (Yellow Form), and the Well Abandonment-Sealing Report Form (White Form). 

Click here for more information and to view the policy memo from WMA

Chesapeake Bay Cleanup to Cost Marylanders $9,750 per Household

BALTIMORE, April 14--A report released today by Sage Policy Group explains why Maryland's plan to comply with new federal regulations designed to clean up the Chesapeake Bay would shrink the state's economy by $10 billion, result in the loss of 65,000 jobs and cost the state, taxpayers and consumers more than $11 billion by 2017 -- making the overall cost to Marylanders $21 billion, or $9,750 per household.

The Sage Group study, "The Impact of the Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan on Key Maryland Industries" was commissioned by the Maryland State Builders Association, which represents the state's home builders, remodelers, suppliers and contractors.

"Clearly the findings of this report are cause for concern," said Steve Seawright, the builders association president.  "We believe the focus of Bay cleanup should center on the leading causes of pollution and the most economically beneficial reduction measures that can be put in place now with the limited resources available," he said.

At a time when our state and nation are struggling to emerge from a significant recession and resulting high unemployment, moving forward with such an expensive plan will be devastating, with $2.8 billion in lost wages and income - and worse yet, the plan does not focus on the worst polluters."

Above and beyond the efficacy of the current state plan, the new mandates go further than those of neighboring states, thus placing Maryland at a competitive disadvantage as it relates to economic growth, job creation and the overall financial impact on residents.

"From a public policy perspective, this suggests that Maryland's implementation program should strive to retain at least the current level of economic development competitiveness vis-à-vis Virginia and other Mid-Atlantic states," the report said. "In other words, Maryland's contributions to Bay restoration should be commensurate with the contributions of other states, thereby allowing Maryland's industries to continue to effectively compete."

From a practical standpoint, it is unclear how the plan's $11 billion price tag will be paid for given the current budgetary limitations on the state and localities, which face substantial cuts and growing liabilities this year and forecast over the next two years.

While some costs will be passed onto consumers and industries, Maryland and its counties would incur dramatic increased costs for compliance over the plan's first five years.

"The Maryland State Builders Association certainly supports efforts to strengthen the health of the Bay, as every Marylander would. We, however, believe that those efforts should be undertaken within the confines of affordability and in way that keeps Maryland competitive economically," Seawright said.

Click Here to download the Sage Economic Report