Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bay Restoration Fund Septics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to expand Bay Restoration Fund priority areas and help moderate‑income homeowners replace failing septic systems
Summary
House Bill 131 would change BRF septic funding priorities to add watersheds with a high nitrogen-effectiveness score, allow moderate‑income homeowners to qualify for best-available-technology grants, and adopt a rolling 15-year eligibility date for older septic systems.
Delegate David Stein, sponsor of House Bill 131, told the House Environment and Transportation Committee that the bill would make three changes to the Septic System Account of the Bay Restoration Fund (BRF): expand priority funding beyond the Chesapeake critical area to 8‑digit watersheds with a “total nitrogen effectiveness score of 9.24 or higher,” make moderate‑income homeowners eligible for repair or replacement with best‑available technology, and replace a static eligibility date with a rolling cutoff so systems installed at least 15 years before July 1 of the application year would qualify.
Alex Butler of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) said MDE supports HB 131 and that the 8‑digit watershed score is a “science based approach” drawn from the 2023 CESAR report. Butler said the department and advocates agreed to amendments in the sponsor packet that refine the watershed mapping and remove a controversial “pay‑for‑performance” provision for now. “After some further discussions, we feel that allowing areas within 8 digit watershed total nitrogen effectiveness score of 9.24 or higher is the science based approach that expands BRF options to additional but clearly defined areas,” Butler said.
Lee Curry, director of MDE's Water and Science Administration, described the proposal as “bringing the science to bear” on allocating the state's dollars more effectively and said he supported the bill with the amendments described by MDE staff.
Advocacy groups and industry witnesses spoke in favor, subject to the agreed amendments. Emily Ransom of Clean Water Action and Annie Richards of ShoreRivers said they supported the sponsor packet amendments and the new watershed mapping. The Maryland On‑Site Wastewater Professionals Association (MAPPA) and the Maryland Realtors also testified in support; MAPPA noted some membership differences on specific details but said amendments addressed key concerns.
Worcester County representative Paul Ellington testified in opposition, citing concerns about housing costs and the potential for the changes to increase development costs and inhibit workforce housing. Ellington asked the sponsor to work with counties on implementation details.
Clarifying details recorded in testimony include: the BRF was established in February 2004; prior statutory eligibility used an October 2008 installation date that now excludes many older systems; HB 131 would set eligibility to systems installed at least 15 years before July 1 of the application year; and the targeted priority would be watersheds with a total nitrogen effectiveness score of 9.24 or higher. Committee witnesses also said pay‑for‑performance language had been removed from the reprint and will be revisited later.
No committee vote was recorded during the hearing; sponsors and department staff urged a favorable report.
