Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewer Connections Brf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsors seek BRF assistance to help low‑income neighborhoods connect to existing sewer lines; some advocates urge limits on connections to noncompliant plants
Summary
House Bill 24 would let qualifying homeowners use Bay Restoration Fund resources to connect failing septic systems to existing municipal sanitary sewers in some neighborhoods; sponsors stressed targeted, income‑based assistance while environmental groups warned about connecting to noncompliant wastewater plants.
Delegates Andrew Naraki and a co‑sponsor told the committee that House Bill 24 would authorize use of Bay Restoration Fund monies to help qualifying homes connect to existing municipal sanitary sewer systems where appropriate, and prioritized connections near existing sewer infrastructure to minimize cost. The sponsors framed the bill as a targeted solution for neighborhoods with longstanding septic failures and raised equity concerns about neighborhoods where homes with widely varying incomes sit on adjacent lots.
Delegate Naraki said the scope was deliberately narrow and focused on areas where connections to existing sewer lines were feasible. He said the bill includes income‑based prioritization to direct funds to those who most need financial help but left some flexibility to avoid creating “a piecemeal approach” where some homes hook up and neighbors do not.
Several residents testified in support describing decades‑long problems. Patricia Payne, who said her family has lived in the community since the 1930s, pleaded for action and described promises made to her community in the 1970s to receive sewer service that never materialized.
Industry testimony from the Maryland On‑Site Wastewater Professionals Association (MAPPA) said the BRF grants are a vital tool and suggested that when a failing septic system is remedied by connecting to public sewer, “the funds are taken from the public sewer side, not the septic side,” because program pools are funded separately. MAPPA estimated some projects could be in the low millions for full neighborhood connections and raised allocation concerns.
Clean Water Action opposed HB 24 in its current form because it would allow connections to wastewater treatment plants that have yet to meet enhanced nutrient reduction (ENR) standards. “We are opposed to the precedent of approving that type of move… adding more pollution to wastewater treatment plants that are not treating the nutrient pollution adequately, should not be the solution,” Emily Ransom testified.
Sponsors said they have been in productive discussions with MDE about a specific plant (Richland Manor) referenced in the hearing and said language could be adjusted to address MDE concerns. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
