His latest (of many) tax proposals would extend the state’s 6% sales tax to purchases of gasoline, on top of the current 23.5 cents per gallon surcharge the state takes. If adopted, Maryland would join a handful of other states which use this nebulous practice of profiting off high gasoline prices.

The other states which do this are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. To see what impact this proposed tax would have on our wallets, we need to use three methods of comparison. First, here are the per-gallon gasoline taxes charged by each of these states and Maryland, ranked lowest to highest, not including sales taxes or various fees added by each state: (Source)

• Florida, 4 cents per gallon
• Georgia, 7.5 cents per gallon
• New York, 8.1 cents per gallon
• Indiana, 18 cents per gallon
• Illinois, 19 cents per gallon
• Michigan, 19 cents per gallon
• Maryland, 23.5 cents per gallon
• California, 35.7 cents per gallon

And now the sales tax rates which are (or would presumably be) applied to gasoline, also listed lowest to highest:

• California, 2.25%
• Georgia, 4%
• Maryland, 6%
• Michigan, 6%
• Illinois, 6.25%
• Indiana, 7%
• New York, 8%
• Florida, 12%

Finally, the combined bite between all taxes (federal, state, and local) impacting gasoline in the states which charge sales tax, which includes where Maryland would eventually rank. To do their calculations, API uses the average cost per gallon in each state according to AAA as of 1/1/12. For Maryland, I couldn’t find the price on the specific 1/1 date but according to the latest AAA figures, the average price one month ago from today was $3.26 and that should suffice for being roughly the price on January 1st. Again, this is lowest to highest.

• Georgia, 47.8 cents per gallon
• Florida, 53.4 cents per gallon
• Illinois, 57.3 cents per gallon
• Indiana, 57.3 cents per gallon
• Michigan, 57.8 cents per gallon
• Maryland, 61.5 58.9 cents per gallon*
• California, 67 cents per gallon
• New York, 67.4 cents per gallon

If this is passed, Maryland would have the fifth-highest total gasoline tax in the country, trailing New York, California, Connecticut (also 67 cents per gallon) and Hawaii (65.5 cents per gallon.) Maryland drivers would be ceding a much higher bite out of their wallets than their neighbors in West Virginia (51.8 cents per gallon), Pennsylvania (50.7 cents per gallon), Washington D.C. (41.9 cents per gallon), Delaware (41.4 cents per gallon), and Virginia (38.2 cents per gallon.) Retailers in those states who are fortunate enough to be close to the Maryland line are probably licking their chops about now.

Of course, this doesn’t factor in the addition of some of MOM’s other trial balloons like a separate 15 cent per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax or increasing the sales tax to 7 percent. And as Todd Eberly points out at The FreeStater Blog, this could all be a feint to make a direct 15 cent additional surcharge more palatable.

As it is currently proposed, the gasoline sales tax would be phased in 2% at a time so drivers wouldn’t be hit all at once. But when they’re projecting $613 million in new annual revenue at a time when the state is over $1 billion in the hole, it will be a surprise if they don’t rush the process. It may get passed this way for now, but wait for the new, improved bill to accelerate the increase next session when money is still tight.

We’re also being told that a gas tax increase is about infrastructure jobs in fixing bridges and roads. But the Maryland Public Policy Institute does a magnificent job of not only blowing that argument out of the water but also pointing out the folly of public transportation while they’re at it. Simply put, it’s another component of the War on Rural Maryland as those of us who drive greater distances because we choose to live away from urban woes will be subsidizing those who ride the buses or light rail in more-developed areas. That group doesn’t quite comprise the 1% but they’re pretty darn close, and they don’t come close to paying their own way.

Putting private transport out of reach to the average family through higher prices also fits neatly into the goals of so-called “Smart Growth” and “sustainable development”, which strives to increase the usage of mass transit. Perhaps this is a line of thought more suited to the tinfoil hat crowd, but one can’t deny it’s much easier to control the population if their movements are controlled.

In any event, the first step in rebuilding Maryland’s crumbling transportation infrastructure needs to come from locking away the Transportation Trust Fund from greedy governors who can’t shake their spending addiction. And if we take back the half of transportation spending we waste on a tiny percentage of commuters and instead gave them a more appropriate share of a nickel per dollar, there are a lot of bridges, road widening projects, and traffic control measures which could be completed for the rest of us who get tired of sitting in traffic.

On the Eastern Shore, we already will bear a significant burden from the newly increased tolls on the Bay Bridge, so we should get a break when it comes to gasoline taxes. The state should quit using the knee-jerk reaction it always seems to have about raising taxes and instead consider spending the vast amounts already collected more wisely.

* I was also taxing the existing tax, not the actual price. Subtract out the 41.9 cents we currently pay in taxes and the sales tax is actually on $2.84 of the $3.26 per gallon.

Polling is in the news these days – sometimes as a real reflection of the political scene, and sometimes just to make news and push a particular agenda. There are two recent polls which I believe reflect the latter.

I’m usually not too trusting of polls in which I can’t find a political or geographical breakdown, and a recent Washington Post poll fits this bill. Taken simply as a sample of 1,064 adults in Maryland, the Post poll gives Martin O’Malley a 55% approval vs. 36% disapproval – compare that to the 53-40 split in the recent Gonzales Poll, which I can easily ascertain subgroups and methodology in. Other disagreements: a 50-44 split in favor of gay marriage on the Post poll vs. a 49-47 split in favor on Gonzales and the “key issue” question: the economy was the top choice of 49% in Gonzales but only 32% on the Post poll.

Without seeing the methodology besides the sample size, my guess is that the local Washington D.C. area was oversampled by the Post. Obviously the economy is better there than in some other portions of the state, and since the area is more liberal than the rest of the state (hard to believe, but true) the other numbers seem to point in that direction as well.

And in another poll covering part of the same region, Sixth District Congressional candidate David Brinkley’s campaign released their opinion that incumbent Roscoe Bartlett has a Mitt Romney problem of sorts: his numbers can’t get over 43 percent in the polls. But the news comes with unanswered questions that gave me pause. (And as I have said in the past, I have no dog in the fight.)

First, the Brinkley campaign cites an opposition poll:

Garagiola’s poll, commissioned by Democratic House Majority PAC, found that the incumbent received just 39% approval rating, with…only 37% of voters believing Bartlett deserves another term. Just as concerning, 60% would prefer someone different.

Approval rating doesn’t always translate into votes; moreover, we don’t know if Brinkley would have a higher approval rating because nothing is mentioned about him. This is likely because both he and Bartlett are somewhat unknown quantities in much of the Sixth District – particularly Brinkley, who actually lives within the newly-redrawn Eighth District (but in an area formerly in the Sixth.) Nor do we know what the approval rating was for Rob “Gas Tax” Garagiola, perhaps he’s only in the 20s or 30s because he’s not as well known outside Montgomery County. (Just let me and a few of my blogging friends have at it – we’ll make sure he’s known for what he does best.) Long story short – these numbers are irrelevant at this point, with the trick being to define the opponent before he defines you.

The same goes for this line:

The Congressman’s poll showed a majority of Republican primary voters were supporting someone else.

Well, considering Roscoe is in an eight-person primary with a lot of new territory, that’s not a complete surprise. The obvious question is whether he’s leading the pack or not. With that much of a field, 40 percent should win – maybe even 25-30 percent. It won’t be a majority but it will be effective.

Finally, Brinkley’s campaign makes a argument which could be effective but may be counterintuitive:

“We didn’t need polls to tell us what we have been hearing from constituents for months,” offered Senator Chris Shank, Brinkley’s Washington County Chair. “This is why so many elected officials are supporting Brinkley.”

Historical results indicate that a Republican can win, but both polls suggest that the incumbent cannot. If the GOP believes it can capture the White House because President Obama is polling in the high 40s, they can’t say they will keep this seat with Bartlett polling in the low 40s. “You can’t have it both ways,” Shank said of the inconsistency.

That’s sort of true, but there’s a little bit of an apples vs. oranges comparison there. We obviously know Obama will be the Democratic standardbearer for the White House, but don’t know how the Sixth District primary will shake out. If we had a direct comparison (i.e. Bartlett vs. Garagiola) that may be more illustrative of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses.

Speaking of picking winners and losers, I was glad Congressman Andy Harris mentioned this little tidbit about the failed Ener1 the other day. Nice to see another $118 million down the rathole:

“In May I held a subcommittee hearing questioning the lack of transparency regarding how Stimulus funds are distributed,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “Now we have yet another company that received hard-working taxpayers’ dollars that declared bankruptcy after wasting $118 million. Ener1 is just the latest in a growing and disturbing trend of Obama Administration decisions that have wasted hundreds of millions of hard-working taxpayers’ dollars to benefit politically connected Obama donors. Picking winners and losers based on crony capitalism is wrong and must come to an end.”

It’s obvious to me that President Obama is a roulette player – but not a very good one. After all, he keeps putting big money on green and we see how often the wheel settles there. Ener1 joins Solyndra and Beacon Power as expensive losers. More troubling, of course, is that some private Solyndra investors are repaid first from whatever proceeds the company recoups.

Finally, tomorrow could be the beginning of the end of a curious election law which set Baltimore County Republicans apart from the rest of the state.

SB85 and HB90 would repeal a law which provides the Chair of the Baltimore County Republican Party is elected by a vote of the people. It’s the only instance in either party where this is so; Baltimore County Democrats and both parties in the remaining 23 municipalities elect their respective Chairs internally – this is how we in Wicomico County elected Dave Parker as our Chair.

Delegate Susan Aumann, who’s lead sponsor of the House bill, noted that:

“Deliberative bodies comprised of elected representatives and political parties throughout Maryland, and even throughout our nation, have the right of selecting their own speaker. What I want for the people of our county is parity with these other democracies.  This legislation also makes sense because it empowers the committee members to select a leader they trust and respect and in return makes the Chairman accountable to his or her committee.”

Since the last elected Chair of that county’s Central Committee resigned only months into his term, I think this is a good idea. I would love to know that the rationale was behind making the move in the first place because the rest of us have a pretty good system whether the individual members are elected by subdistricts as a few counties do or at-large like Wicomico County and other smaller counties. They, in turn, elect a chair and other officers.

As I did last time, I want to also review the new blogs on my bloglist, and point out I revamped the categories slightly. Blogs which provide new content daily go in the “Daily News and Commentary” category while those which don’t fit as local, Delaware, or Maryland sites go in “Other Great Blogs.”

For Maryland blogs, I’ve added The Quinton Report, which is Jeff Quinton’s other project besides Inside Charm City.

Out among the rest of the country, Datechguy’s Blog is a Massachusetts-based site which covers national issues. The operator is a radio talk show host and blogger who I’ve come to know through some of my other new connections.

And while it’s not a blog per se, I thought it prudent to give a shout out to my friends up the Shore and link to the Cecil County Patriots site. I may have a need for them soon since I’d like to use some of their video from a recent event if they make it available.

And seeing Da Tech Guy on my screen makes me think about doing a new poll, which will be up shortly. Check for it.

The population of the District of Columbia is growing faster than that of any state in the country, according to a new U.S. Census report that shows an acceleration of a trend in which largely skilled and educated workers have flocked to the city’s resilient local economy and its well-paying jobs connected to the federal government.

I don’t begrudge people getting jobs, but shouldn’t we be trying to lessen the influence of the federal government?

And a reason for the growth Hill cites in the story strikes me as ironic:

Former Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who served from 1999 to 2007, is credited with starting the trend with a pro-development, business-friendly agenda that helped revive the downtown commercial districts and neglected neighborhoods while improving schools and public safety.

So are we to assume that a conservative agenda would create growth? That’s the way I read this, as the Radical Green platform can’t stand development and wants to punish business aside from a few certain favored industries. Lord knows our federal government doesn’t have a “pro-development, business-friendly agenda” with the guy in charge now, not by a long shot. Yet that approach turns out to be a boon for Washington; unfortunately their gain is our pain.

Obviously there will always be a group of people who work in government, even if it is rightsized. There are legitimate functions which need to be performed and can only be done through that arena. But I wouldn’t mind seeing the population of the District of Columbia decline, or simply grow only because Washington is a nice city with plenty of tourism possibilities because of its history. Those who thrive because of the ever-increasing size and scope of the nanny state are the ones I’d love to see get real jobs – after all, the world needs ditch diggers too.

I have found it interesting over the last few days that our “beloved” Governor seems to be operating from the shadows. First of all, his hand-picked redistricting committee dumps out the General Assembly redistricting plan on a Friday evening, when many have tuned out for the weekend, and now this move a week before Christmas. It seems to me that he could have gotten the same thing by making it part of his legislative package for the 2012 session and legitimized PlanMaryland more in the eyes of the public. Instead, Martin O’Malley rams it into law via executive order. Maybe he has learned a lesson or two from Barack Obama and certainly eyes the 2016 Democratic nomination.

And while the Executive Order claims that “PlanMaryland is not a substitute for local comprehensive plans and it will not supplant local planning and zoning authority,” let’s see what happens if a local jurisdiction doesn’t “identify proposed Planning Areas by reviewing their existing comprehensive plans and regulations to see where and how they align with Planning Area Guidelines.” Of course, those will be commanded from on high at the Maryland Department of Planning – the same people who gave us our redistricting.

The biggest problem I have with PlanMaryland is my belief that those who already have growth and development will be allowed to keep going, while areas like ours which need something to spur job creation and attract growth will be starved. There’s no question that the Radical Green idea of maintaining our rural heritage isn’t one of agriculture, but restoring our land back to a state of wilderness. Sadly, we have a Governor who’s pretty much in allegiance to Radical Green – hence the War on Rural Maryland.

Moreover, it’s a question of autonomy. Similar to the argument for supporting an elected school board over one appointed by the Governor, generally the closer government is to the people the more responsive and proper it becomes. Our interests may not be those of some Annapolis bureaucrat in his cubicle, but with PlanMaryland what that faceless and feckless automaton says will dictate our policies regardless of how we would prefer to proceed.

Now that the process is underway, a group called the Smart Growth Subcabinet will have the task of receiving reports over the next 180 days from various state agencies on how they will implement PlanMaryland, then another 60 days to come up with a summary report. Thus, by the end of next summer we will have some idea of PlanMaryland’s effects on our way of life.

Speaking for the other side, Delegate Justin Ready noted that ”(t)he O’Malley Administration has said that PlanMaryland is nothing new.  However, they have also said that it is a ‘first step’. My view is if this is a ‘first step’ towards any change in how we deal with land use in our state – that first step should be vetted by the General Assembly,” Ready concluded.   “This discussion will definitely continue in the 2012 Legislative Session.”

However, the problem with Ready’s approach is that it’s almost certainly doomed to fail. Even if legislation which curtails some or all of PlanMaryland manages to pass the General Assembly it’s likely to be vetoed by Governor O’Malley. Then the question would obviously be whether the General Assembly could muster the votes to override next year and I don’t think the majority party really wants to cross the governor. They can conveniently let him take the blame since he’s not up for re-election in 2014 – but they are. And given the short attention span of many Maryland voters who don’t notice their freedoms being eroded drop by drop, they just might get away with it.

PHI, the holding company that owns and operates Delmarva Power, notes in their 2010 Annual Environmental Sustainability Report that “development of (advanced metering infrastructure) is nearing completion in Delaware…In total, PHI is installing about 1.2 million smart meters across its jurisdictions.” In that same report, they boast about receiving a $168 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to “support the rollout of our smart grid initiatives.” In other words, they used our tax dollars to get this ball rolling and now expect ratepayers to make up the difference. Now that’s chutzpah.

Before I go on, I feel I should remind you that I’m all in favor of energy efficiency. But you won’t catch me willingly putting one of these smart meters on my domicile, and the reason is simple. A smart meter is set for two-way operation, and while the utility will tell you all about the benefits of being able to save money by tracking your energy usage and eventually adopting the option of dynamic pricing, they are more hesitant to add that they also can control your thermostat and cycle your heat or central air system on or off remotely. Perhaps you prefer 70 degrees year-round in your home, but the utility would have the power to enforce a setting of 65 in the winter and 78 in the summer. Sorry, I prefer maintaining controls and determining whether the extra expense is worth it on my own.

For its part, PHI just says “this huge undertaking (of installing smart meters) will take considerable time and investment, and will provide benefits to customers and all those interested in reducing regional and national energy use.” (Emphasis mine.) My problem is that those interested in reducing energy use seem to align far too often with those who would like to reduce our standard of living.

And those who would reduce our standard of living by flat-out lying about the need to turn away from fossil fuels before we run out will probably have a collective heart attack when they read – by the federal government’s own figures – that we have generations’ worth of recoverable fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) under our own landmass and beneath waters we control. It’s only because the government doesn’t have the will to allow its extraction that we go without. (h/t: Steve Maley.)

So the only limit to our energy usage should be that enforced by our bottom line, not the one envisioned by do-gooders in Dover, Annapolis, or Washington, D.C. And if we got cracking on using our own resources for a change we might be able to lower our electrical rates much more than forcing us to shiver in a 65 degree house in midwinter would ever do.

Obviously this is a situation which is slowly being addressed, as the story points out over $2 billion is being invested into repairing the system over the next decade. Certainly that’s a legitimate function of government, and I have no objection to local tax dollars being used in such a manner.

It’s the unfortunate tendency of farmers and rural interests getting the blame for a problem that occurs because of urban areas like Baltimore City and County which bothers me the most.

While they have a small role to play in the perceived contamination of Chesapeake Bay, it’s my thought that farmers and those in rural counties take a disproportionate share of the blame for the Bay’s woes and would bear the brunt of punishment through ill-conceived concepts like Smart Growth and its offspring, PlanMaryland. It seems to me that the infrastructure in place that Smart Growth relies on may not work as well as what comes naturally from a septic system or perhaps an advanced local treatment plant, which would be supplied by all-new infrastructure that’s technologically advanced over the construction methods of a century or even forty years ago.

Let’s create and develop two mythical subdivisions as examples. Subdivision A is created outside the urban core, and let’s say the developer sees the benefits of something like this. Essentially they’re using the latest technology and brand-new infrastructure, while putting out clean effluent which won’t have adverse effects on the ecosystem. The cost would be spread out among those choosing to live in the development.

On the other hand, Subdivision B is hooked up to the existing city sewer system. The new subdivision will have nice infrastructure up to the point it hooks up to the city’s system – then it’s anyone’s guess how well the waste products will be taken care of before reaching their final destination. Taxpayers will be saddled with the bill for improvements, which will be piecemeal Band-Aids since they can never seem to keep up with the demands presented by an aging system.

It seems to me that growth outside the core shouldn’t be discouraged since in the long run it may be beneficial to the ecosystem. By not taxing leaky municipal systems as much they’ll be allowed to last longer and perhaps be overhauled to more modern standards. It’s contrarian thinking at its best.

And quit blaming agriculture for the problems city-dwellers create. There’s plenty enough regulation for them to contend with now without dreaming up new hoops for them to jump through.

I’ll let Andy Harris pick things up from here:

“Americans need the truly ‘shovel-ready’ jobs and economic investment that the Keystone XL Pipeline will provide,” said Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01). “The plan that the House majority has introduced is an excellent compromise that will extend tax cuts to the middle class, create tens of thousands of jobs, and will help secure America’s energy future. I am deeply disappointed that President Obama has promised to veto this bill to extend tax relief to our citizens over the Keystone pipeline provision that actually creates jobs without spending a dime of taxpayer money while lowering the price of gasoline and diesel as well.”

Yes, President Obama is threatening to veto the measure. So much for compromise.

Either one of the two points below would then be true. Come to think about it, maybe both are:

• President Obama doesn’t really want to create jobs. Well, perhaps he doesn’t unless they happen to be either government jobs or positions in an industry he favors. But I have news for the President: there aren’t any green jobs; shoot, right now there aren’t many jobs period. Or:
• President Obama really has no desire to cut taxes. To be honest, this tax cut he gave out was relatively insignificant to working families. But he certainly wants to lower the boom on more successful working families by increasing the taxes for couples that make over $200,000.

I’ll grant that the Keystone XL pipeline probably won’t do a whole lot for our local economy since it will run through several states in the Midwest. But the additional oil supply will help us in the long run by stabilizing gasoline prices, as Congressman Harris points out.

But if we do elect a new President next year, I hope Congressman Harris – assuming he’s re-elected, for which he’s an odds-on favorite at the moment – will begin to advocate solutions for our tax code which are more permanent and will begin the process of weaning the government off an income-based tax collection. Ramping up a consumption-based tax, as Herman Cain proposed with his economic plan, would serve this purpose.

Electing conservatives isn’t enough – we need to elect those who have the courage to act. Whether you like President Obama or despise his policies as much as I do, the one thing you can say is that he acted in trying to get his agenda done. We may only have four years to undo the damage he did, although I suspect that if a true conservative succeeds Obama he (or she) will have a full eight years to make a difference. But we’ll all have to roll up our sleeves and get to work – something sorely lacking with the Obama regime.

And now for something completely different:

The first of six opening round tilts in my best local blog poll is over, and the first semi-finalist will be Right Coast Conservative.

After a strong start, Julie Brewington’s site saw a rally from the Shorebirds’ blog which placed it ahead for a time. But much like their team’s performance in 2011, the Shorebirds site couldn’t hang on in the late innings as a strong push from RCC readers carried Julie’s site in the end. Right Coast Conservative received 143 votes and moves on, while the Delmarva Shorebirds Blog gathered 66. The Pocomoke Public Eye did not receive a vote.

The second round is up now, and it has an interesting draw to be sure.

Their work got me to thinking about events closer to home. While Maryland doesn’t have its own Solyndra on a federal level and our efforts against Radical Green have been more concentrated lately on the battle to thwart the adoption of PlanMaryland, we indeed have our issues and spend many tax dollars on alternative energy. Governor O’Malley is foursquare a believer in anthropogenic climate change and has connived the Maryland General Assembly into passing several measures ceding a significant market share to these alternatives without a clear market demand for them.

For example, we’ve passed and since tightened twice a solar energy portfolio utilities are mandated to meet or pay a penalty, entered the extortion of local utilities otherwise known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – a nifty model of wealth redistribution – and mandated a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (read: our standard of living), just to name a few. Aside from the original solar energy portfolio mandates, these bills were all introduced at O’Malley’s behest and rushed through without much thought about the impact on the state’s economy. On the other hand, even exploring for offshore oil is something O’Malley “can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to go forward with” and tapping into a proven source of energy such as the Marcellus Shale formation has to be studied to death before Marylanders can take advantage. Meanwhile, our state is a net importer of electricity because of its high density, small land mass, and unwillingness to build the generating plants to bring balance (a Calvert Cliffs would likely not be built today.)

I have little doubt that there may come a time when some of these alternatives could work well, but the problem is we can’t depend on the fickle nature of natural phenomena to promote a 24/7/365 economy. To do so would place us in the same category as Third World nations which are lucky to have electricity a few hours a day, if at all. A stretch of cloudy, rainy days isn’t going to make a solar panel very useful nor will those hot, still days of midsummer do much to turn a wind turbine. Even a more reliable natural source like hydroelectric production could be curtailed by a lengthy dry spell.

It’s quite telling to me that radical environmentalists reflexively believe that any alternative energy or restriction of fossil fuel usage is great, and those skeptics like me need some sort of reeducation. (After all, why else would Maryland mandate environmental education in the schools? Can’t let those who know the real score influence those “skulls full of mush” in a politically incorrect way.) I’ll concede that someday in the distant future we will indeed eventually run out of marketable fossil fuels, but I have faith that someone in the private sector will also figure out a way forward – sort of like how Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, or the Wright brothers did.

The problem I have is in the force of law telling us we must adapt or the government tilting the playing field in a specific direction toward these unproven technologies. If someone wants to place a bed of solar panels or put up a windmill to power their farm (as was done a century ago) I say go ahead and do so – just pay for it out of your own pocket. If there’s economic viability in doing so, then by all means take advantage. But that economic viability shouldn’t include a cut from the state funding siphoned from your neighbors while other legitimate functions of government go wanting.

You likely recall the story about the Hudson farm in Berlin and their trouble with environmentalists determined to extract their pound of flesh from this chicken growing operation. I received a note from former Maryland GOP head Jim Pelura which noted this sort of problem isn’t new, and farmers shouldn’t bear the brunt of the blame. He forwarded to me a copy of a letter he wrote to Kim Coble of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation back in 2005, part of which I excerpt here:

Thank you for your letter and brochure outlining the CBF’s position on agriculture’s part in the over-nutrification of the Chesapeake Bay. It was well written and concise.

However, I must take exception with the underlying premise that Maryland agriculture (both animal and crop) is the major cause of pollution in the Bay.

By using the Maryland Department of the Environment’s own figures, a major cause of Bay pollution is malfunctioning sewage treatment plants. I would even go so far as to suggest that sewage treatment plant malfunctions are the major cause of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution of the Bay.

According to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), close to 700,000,000 gallons of raw or minimally treated sewage was dumped into Maryland waterways in 2004. So far in 2005, there has been nearly 400,000,000 gallons of raw or minimally treated sewage that ended up in our streams and rivers. (Additional 3 million gallon spill in Arnold, Maryland this week).

As an advocate for Maryland agriculture, I have been following this situation for some time. The Maryland Department of the Environment has been aware of this situation, and in 1995 realized that antiquated and poorly maintained sewage treatment plants were a major cause of Bay pollution. (Emphasis in original.)

So the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and their environmentalist allies should know what the problem really is – but it’s more difficult to sue a city or other unit of government than it is to pick on farmers or big bad agribusiness in general. As the Hudson family is finding out, being the little guy makes it much easier to pick on you. Thanks to Jim for the update.

I also heard from Laura Mitchell of Salisbury City Council, both in person at the Winter Wonderland of Lights unveiling last night and on her Facebook page this evening. It seems she’s not giving up on her dogged fight against a city charter change:

Tomorrow night at 6:00pm in the Salisbury City Council Chambers, I will ask the Council to consider a Resolution to put the recent Charter Amendment on the 2013 ballot for a non-binding referendum vote.

More than 2,300 people signed the petition asking that the Council give the decision to determine the structure and operation of their government back to the voters. I heard that message loud and clear and I hope that my colleagues will as well. If you would like to help deliver the message of strength and unity and the desire for an inclusive City government in Salisbury, please join me at the meeting at 6:00pm.

You may speak during public comments if you wish, but there is no requirement to do so. Your presence will speak volumes. Please join me in turning up the volume of our message to a level that demands recognition.

I hope to see you there!

While I don’t support the Charter change because it’s a case of the legislative branch usurping the power of the city’s executive, I’m not sure a non-binding vote is the way to go; after all, the Charter change will go through regardless. The only reason this could be relevant is the timing – one of the three who voted for the change (Debbie Campbell) will be on the ballot, while the other two offices up for grabs will be that of Mayor Ireton (who will presumably be seeking re-election) and Council member Shanie Shields, who said at the beginning of this term that it would be her last. So there would be a new member in her place as well.

Having said that, though, the prospect is there of a different 3-2 configuration tossing out the Charter change 18 months from now and taking us back to the old way. Obviously 2300 people (including myself) were interested in preserving the system in place and that would be a significant chunk of the electorate with a vested interest in the 2013 race.

I will have another piece of news tomorrow morning concerning state politics – those who follow me on Facebook already know what it is. Tonight I’ll put the finishing touches on those tasks I need to do on this site to accommodate the new feature.

Needless to say, the Waterkeepers Alliance is no friend of farmers. As their staff attorney sneered in a 2009 news release announcing the suit, “If you want to find out why the Chesapeake watershed is so polluted, then you don’t need to look any further than this facility and others like it around the Eastern Shore.” So it has nothing to do with the leaking municipal sewage plants or anything which happens upstream in Pennsylvania or New York – it’s just greedy agribusiness and corporate farms wantonly polluting the landscape (read: farmers trying to make a living.)

But besides the obvious concern about the farm the Maryland Department of the Environment,which was apparently resolved to their satisfaction in the 2010 decision to fine the operator, the most recent controversy arose from the fact that law students from the University of Maryland’s Environmental Law Clinic are representing the Waterkeepers Alliance in the suit. In short, the state of Maryland is complicit in trying to run this Perdue grower out of business – hence O’Malley’s concern about the law school’s role in a “state-sponsored injustice and misuse of taxpayer resources.”

My question is much simpler, though. Why does the Waterkeepers Alliance, an organization which collected over $3 million in FY2010 and $16 million over a five-year period (see part 2 of Schedule A), need a group of college law students to help, anyway? Has the Kennedy family fortune melted away that quickly? I doubt it.

Others have also weighed in on the issue, and backed O’Malley’s suddenly stiffened spine. Kim Burns of Maryland Business for Responsive Government added, “the precedent the law school’s action sets for land use policy and economic development all over Maryland is horrendous. The law clinic’s action has already caused serious damage to the viability of the farm, the use of the land, and to an industry critical to Maryland, to operate lawfully and without unwarranted government intrusion…Governor O’Malley is correct to hold the clinic accountable.”

Meanwhile, Congressman Andy Harris chimed in by stating “tactics like this, especially when they are backed financially by the state, will destroy the poultry industry. Governor O’Malley was absolutely right to question whether this is an appropriate use of state resources.”

It’s understandable that a law school needs to have some method of showing prospective students the ropes. But this particular case seems to smell about as much as the manure pile, and since the MDE had already resolved the issue to its satisfaction perhaps the Waterkeepers Alliance should have sued the MDE on their own instead of trying to pick on a small family business.

Instead, the radical greenies choose to take a stance against an industry that’s the lifeblood of this area. All the better to create wildlife corridors and “greenways,” I suppose. If this attack on farming keeps up, someday the environmentalists may get their wish – a depopulated Eastern Shore littered with the ruins of a once-thriving agricultural industry. Like sunken ships made into artificial reefs, the remnants of chicken houses, family farms, and industry will slowly be taken over by nature and become habitat for Gaia’s creatures. Too bad no one will be around to enjoy it.

Trust me, this is only a temporary pullback in the War on Rural Maryland. I didn’t hear of any pledge by the Governor to defund the Environmental Law Clinic because of this transgression, so once the controversy blows over it will be back to business as usual.

With that passage the county was authorized to spend nearly $2 million in state money to purchase easements on 710 acres of land along Nanticoke and Royal Oak Roads known as the Tracey Property – that’s a little over one square mile of territory.

In a statement, county PIO Jim Fineran quoted County Executive Rick Pollitt as saying, “This is another important step in the preservation of our rural way of life here. The fact that this unspoiled property will remain as that is of crucial importance to us and future generations. We are deeply appreciative of Governor O’Malley’s support through the Department of Natural Resources.” Well, they should be appreciative – but I’d rather see that funding come to us as highway money so the roads can be fixed and upgraded.

There was one statement in the briefing book that intrigued me, though:

Since the inception of Wicomico County’s Rural Legacy Program in 2000, the State’s Green Infrastructure Program (Established in 2004) has developed additional goals and strategies for protecting environmentally sensitive areas. A predominate (sic) attribute among the program’s goals and strategies is to improve connectivity between environmentally sensitive and naturally occurring areas through the use of greenways or corridors. Over 97% (461.1 acres) of this particular easement acquisition lies within a State designated Green Infrastructure Hub and will assist the State’s goals of preserving large consecutive tracts of land and promote connectivity between the County’s various land preservation programs. (Emphasis mine.)

So PlanMaryland’s goals are already in place; as greenways get larger less land is available for development. In the case of this parcel, the euphemistic estimate is that up to 110 lots were “extinguished” by the purchase of this easement – betcha that would have netted the Tracey trust far more than $2 million.

And it’s not just this property. It seems like whoever wrote this is proud about the fact:

To date, $4,382,729.34 of Rural Legacy funds, as well as $144,698.14 of Wicomico County Forest Conservation Funds, Wicomico County Agricultural Preservation Funds and private donations, have already been used to protect 2,188.152 acres of land in the Quantico Creek Rural Legacy Area by way of easement acquisition. These easements were placed on lands near the headwaters of Quantico Creek surrounding the historic rural village of Quantico, as well as prime agricultural and forest land along Royal Oak Road. This area is recognized for its rural character. open lands, cultural significance, wildlife habitat and water quality impact on the Nanticoke River Watershed. By placing easements on these lands a minimum of 374 and potential maximum 622 dwelling units have been extinguished in the Agricultural Zoning (A — 1) district, further indicating our commitment to protect our natural and agricultural resources in Wicomico County. Currently, Wicomico County has $1,279,729.34 allocated to it from the State to purchase Rural Legacy easements.

That’s growth that we can’t have now; well, it’s the freedom to develop in that area. Instead, the state has placed their bootstamp of control on this private property so that future generations are saddled with land which can’t reach its highest and best use. It’s not to say that all of the land could or should be developed, but now there’s no choice. That’s why I’ve advocated these types of programs run on a 20 to 25 year schedule so the next generation is free to change its mind should economic circumstances demand this.

And if the central planners in Annapolis have their way, the state will also have the power to not just purchase easement rights through the various counties, but withhold funding in places where they don’t want growth. I doubt there’s a whole lot of Rural Legacy money spent along the I-95 corridor because that’s where all the Democrats live.

It’s just another part of the War on Rural Maryland, and our County Council was duped into going along.

Maybe the time is ripe for telling O’Malley to pound sand. If a county feels threatened by a regulation passed without benefit of a vote of the General Assembly, perhaps it should be ignored. What else can the state do to hurt us?