In 1999, Chapter 703 was enacted revising licensing procedures for blind sites generally throughout the State, with the exception of Talbot County. The effect of Chapter 703 was to prescribe a uniform licensing system for the placement of blind sites, the distance between blind sites, and the distance into the water where a blind site may be placed. Chapter 703 takes effect May 1, 2000. House Bill 347 (passed) repeals current duck blind licensing provisions specific to Talbot County, thereby making Talbot County consistent with the licensing requirements of all other counties.

Continuing the work of Chapter 703, House Bill 656 (passed) clarifies the new blind site requirements to allow a riparian landowner who owns less than 250 yards of continuous shoreline to establish an offshore blind site if no other shoreline is licensed within 125 yards of the blind site. This bill will provide small landowners with hunting opportunities.

Deer Hunting

According to Department of Natural Resources (DNR), deer populations are capable of doubling within a few years if they are not controlled. With diminished populations of natural predators, DNR maintains the most efficient type of population control is hunting. House Bill 406 (passed) codifies existing regulations by allowing DNR to issue a limited number of bonus antlerless deer stamps for the purpose of regulating the harvest of antlerless deer in a particular deer management region or zone. Due to the fiscal burden of refunding application fees, the bill makes the fee for bonus antlerless deer stamps non-refundable if the applicant does not obtain an antlerless deer stamp through the lottery system.

House Bill 805 (passed) requires DNR to adopt regulations governing the use of dogs to aid in the prompt recovery of killed, wounded, or injured deer, which is especially difficult in heavily vegetated areas. Except as provided in those regulations, a person may not take a dog into the woods or possess or control a dog in the woods and use the dog to hunt or pursue deer.

Coyote Hunting and Trapping

Current law provides for the hunting and trapping of coyotes through September 30, 2000. In response to concerns by citizens that the increasing coyote population is causing damage to farm animals, pets, property, and other wildlife, House Bill 1322 (passed) repeals the September 30, 2000, termination date relating to the hunting and trapping of coyotes in order to allow for the continued management of the coyote population.

Fisheries Management

Tidal Fish Licenses

In order to maintain the 1998 Limited Entry Act's intent to develop a viable program to control fishing efforts and at the same time incorporate an avenue for new participants in the fishery, House Bill 407 (passed) allows a holder of three or more tidal fish license authorizations, one of which is a crabbing authorization, to trade in those authorizations for an unlimited tidal fish authorization. It also enables tidal fish license authorizations, upon the death of a licensee, to be transferred to an authorized representative or from an authorized representative to a third party.

Nontidal Fish Licenses

House Bill 1118 (passed) establishes a new category of freshwater fishing guide licenses to allow guides to operate in both nontidal and specified tidal waters. By authorizing freshwater fishing guides to provide services in limited areas of tidal water, the bill will enable anglers to better target largemouth and smallmouth bass.

To recognize that neighboring states issue nontidal fish licenses at higher fees, House Bill 809 (passed) modifies nonresident license fees for nontidal fish licenses to be the current base fee or a fee equal to the fee that a Maryland resident would be charged in the nonresident's home state, whichever is greater. In order to provide equitable treatment for Marylanders, DNR has established reciprocal fees for certain hunting licenses and commercial fishing licenses.

Senate Bill 63 (passed) allows for the legitimate replacement, at a reduced fee, of an angler's license or trout stamp that is lost or destroyed.

Regulation

A pound net work group comprised of active commercial licensees, along with representatives of the Tidal Fish Advisory Commission, Sport Fish Advisory Commission, Maryland Sportfishing Association, and Coastal Conservation Association convened several times to assess the pound net fishery. The pound net work group recommended that DNR adopt regulations to modify the process for the assignment of pound net locations to integrate GPS coordinates and limit the number of locations per licensee. Senate Bill 332 (passed) provides the authority for DNR to adopt such regulations.

In order to enhance monitoring and enforcement activities related to oyster regulation, Senate Bill 417 (passed) changes the current licensing requirements for harvesting oysters with a power dredge in Calvert, Dorchester, Somerset, and St. Mary's Counties from a license system to a permit system.

Environment

Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Program

Brownfields are abandoned or underutilized industrial or commercial sites, located primarily in urban areas, that are either contaminated or perceived to be contaminated by hazardous substances. The Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Program (BRIP), managed by the Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED), provides property tax credits for the redevelopment of brownfields in participating jurisdictions. This program also is expected to target loans and grants toward properties contaminated by hazardous waste or oil, thereby "jump starting" the redevelopment process where cleanup will have significant environment, economic development, and urban revitalization benefits.

Of the 175 counties and municipalities in the State, only Allegany, Baltimore, and Montgomery counties, Baltimore City, and three municipalities, Colmar Manor, Taneytown, and the City of Salisbury, have elected to participate in BRIP by enacting the requisite property tax legislation. There have been 15 applications to the brownfields program. To date, no grants or loans have been awarded; however, DBED advises that it will award approximately $600,000 by the end of fiscal 2000. Senate Bill 513/House Bill 331 (both passed) were introduced to address the underutilization of the program.

The legislation allows DBED to provide a low-interest loan or grant to a person in order to conduct the environmental site assessment of a brownfields site that is required for participation in the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The person must: (1) apply for the assistance prior to applying for participation in the VCP; and (2) meet eligibility requirements established by DBED. A recipient of a grant must repay the grant if the person, within 12 months after receiving the grant, does not apply to and receive approval from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to participate in the VCP or for the implementation of a corrective action plan.

Further, a low-interest loan must convert to a market rate loan if the recipient, within 12 months after receiving the loan, does not apply to and receive approval from MDE to participate in the VCP or for the implementation of a corrective action plan. If an environmental assessment is financed in whole or in part with a BRIP grant, or by a BRIP loan that is in payment default, the information contained in the assessment is the property of the State. Conversely, if an assessment is financed by a BRIP loan, or by a BRIP grant that is repaid, the information contained in the assessment is the property of the person who contracted for the assessment.

Senate Bill 513/House Bill 331 further alter how a local jurisdiction may participate in BRIP. A county or municipality may participate by submitting a list to DBED that ranks the potential brownfields sites in the county or municipality in the order of priority for redevelopment. The list must be updated annually. The legislation repeals the requirement that participating jurisdictions enact the necessary legislation to grant the property tax credits. Instead, the legislation authorizes the participation of jurisdictions that enact such credits and provides that the money received by the fund from local jurisdictions must only be used for brownfields sites in the taxing jurisdictions that have enacted the property tax credit.

Finally, the initiative alters the types of properties that qualify as a brownfields site. Specifically, a brownfields site includes property that is owned by an innocent purchaser. An innocent purchaser is a person who can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time the person acquired an interest in a site containing a hazardous substance, the person did not know and had no reason to know that any hazardous substance was disposed of on, in, or at the site.

The Brownfields Revitalization Incentive Fund has a fund balance of about $1.4 million, comprised of general fund appropriations beginning in fiscal 1998 and investment income. DBED expects that by the end of fiscal 2000, $600,000 will be awarded, leaving $800,000 available for projects in fiscal 2001. It is expected that there will be sufficient demand under current law to deplete the fund balance in fiscal 2001. The fiscal 2001 budget does not include a general fund appropriation to the fund. However, DBED's capital improvement program projects that annual PAYGO appropriations to the brownfields fund will be $1 million through fiscal 2005. Because the bill expands the eligible uses of awarded funds, it is expected that the bill will increase the number of applicants to the program. It is further expected that the bill will increase the grant and loan activity in the underutilized fund. Therefore, it is likely that special fund expenditures and related revenues from interest payments could increase beyond the $800,000 budgeted for fiscal 2001.

Water Quality

Septic Systems

In August 1999, the Governor created the Septic System Advisory Committee to address concerns relating to nutrient pollution from septic systems. The committee was charged with defining and developing recommendations for an "areas of concern" approach to reducing nutrient pollution from septic systems.

The committee, in its report to the Governor issued in January 2000, provided several recommendations, including: (1) in areas of special concern, nitrogen removal technology should be required for all new septic systems and upon repair, replacement, or change in the use of existing septic systems; (2) MDE's on-site sewage disposal regulations should be amended to establish basic criteria for utilizing recirculating sand filters and denitrifying biological treatment units for nitrogen removal; (3) MDE should develop standard maintenance requirements; (4) MDE's septic system regulations should be amended to include inspection of all septic systems once every three years; (5) shared on-site sewage disposal systems should be addressed; and (6) financial assistance in the form of a tax credit should be provided to owners to install nitrogen removal technology.

Senate Bill 210/House Bill 283 (both failed) would have addressed the advisory committee's recommendations by requiring MDE to adopt regulations requiring nitrogen removal technology in specified areas of special concern for the installation of new septic systems or the repair, replacement, or change in use of existing septic systems. The bill also would have required MDE to propose regulations applicable statewide regarding the inspection, operation, and maintenance of on-site sewage disposal systems consistent with the bill and to report to the Governor and the General Assembly by October 1, 2002, on the progress towards implementation of the bill.

Counties would have been required, by October 1, 2004, to identify areas of special concern in county plans. "Areas of special concern" would have included:

(1) areas of failing on-site sewage disposal systems; (2) drinking water supply areas, including wellhead protection areas, reservoir protection areas, and aquifer recharge areas; (3) Chesapeake Bay critical areas; (4) soils with a high potential to transport nitrogen; (5) karst or carbonate geologic areas; (6) coastal bays watersheds; (7) areas of groundwater and surface water with documented contamination from nitrogen; and

(8) any other areas identified and documented scientifically by local officials as requiring the use of nitrogen removal technology. Designations of areas of special concern would not have taken effect prior to October 1, 2002.

To offset some of the compliance costs for the repair, replacement, or modification of existing septic systems, the bills would have provided tax credits equal to 70 percent of the cost of purchasing and installing nitrogen removal technology up to $4,900 in any taxable year.

Underground Storage Tanks

The Maryland Oil Disaster Containment, Clean-up and Contingency Fund (Oil Fund) was established in 1986 to provide funding to MDE's oil pollution prevention programs, such as permitting, enforcement, and oil spill response. A fee of 0.75 cents was imposed on each barrel of oil transferred into the State. During the 1996 session, the General Assembly increased the fee to 1 cent per barrel, with an additional 0.5 cent fee that is set to expire on July 1, 2000. The current fee generates approximately $1.5 million in revenues annually. The Oil Contaminated Site Environmental Cleanup Fund (Cleanup Reimbursement Fund) was established in 1993 to reimburse underground storage tank (UST) owners for costs incurred during site cleanups.

Chapter 532 of 1996 required MDE to convene a work group and undertake a comprehensive review and assessment of the funding mechanisms for the cleanup of oil-contaminated sites from USTs, as well as the funding levels of oil-related activities. The work group, in a report submitted to the Legislative Policy Committee in November 1999, made several recommendations regarding the oil transfer fee, funding for oil pollution prevention activities, and the establishment of a new initiative to determine the extent of groundwater pollution with respect to methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). Because of its highly water soluble nature, MTBE, the most commonly used gasoline oxygenate in the United States and Maryland, is being detected with increasing frequency in surface and groundwater throughout the United States due to leaking underground petroleum storage tanks, spills, and other accidental discharges.

House Bill 457 (passed) provides for the continuation and increase of fees assessed on oil transferred into the State and provides for the expansion of the existing reimbursement program to apply to the cleanup of leaking heating oil tanks. The bill also authorizes MDE to transfer $300,000 per fiscal year for five consecutive fiscal years beginning in fiscal 2001 from funds reserved within the Oil Fund for cleanup of underground storage tanks and oil releases to fund other oil-related activities. The collection of approximately $500,000 in special fund revenues will continue as a result of the bill, and special fund revenues will increase by $1.5 million. MDE intends to use some of the increase in revenues to establish a new initiative to study groundwater contamination by MTBE.

House Bill 823 (passed), an emergency bill, establishes a 16-member task force to determine and assess the environmental and health risks associated with ground and surface water contamination by MTBE. The task force will also examine national and regional efforts concerning contamination from MTBE, recommend plans to minimize and counteract risks associated with contamination from MTBE, and explore alternatives to MTBE, including ethanol and oxygenated fuel, which can be used for the purpose of reformulating gasoline to reduce air toxic emissions and pollutants that form ground-level ozone.

Lead

Although lead poisoning is preventable, it remains one of the most common child health problems in America. In order to provide tenants with important information regarding lead contaminated paint in rental housing, House Bill 1052 (passed) requires that when property owners of affected properties provide the required notice of tenant rights at the inception of a tenancy or upon execution of a lease, they must also give the tenant a copy of the current verified lead inspection certificate.

Ballast Water Management

In recent years, concern has been raised regarding the introduction of invasive non-indigenous aquatic species through the exchange of vessel ballast water. House Bill 1305 (passed) addresses this concern by requiring MDE to adopt by regulation the federal and State guidelines for a voluntary ballast water management program for vessels entering Maryland waters. In addition, the bill requires MDE to adopt regulations for a mandatory ballast reporting requirement for all commercial vessels of 300 gross tons or more. The bill establishes penalties of up to $500 for failure to compete and return the required forms, and up to $5,000 and one year of imprisonment for persons who knowingly, and with an intent to deceive, falsify or fail to complete the required forms.

Dredging

Dredged material is collected as a result of the need to periodically dredge the bottom of the major approach channels to the Port of Baltimore, as well as the port itself, to ensure that these waterways are deep enough to allow ships to enter and exit the port without scraping the bottom. According to the Maryland Port Administration, about four to five million cubic yards (mcy) of material has to be dredged from the Chesapeake Bay annually to maintain shipping channels to Baltimore. Over time, the amount of dredged material is expected to increase to accommodate the increasing size of new ships.

Currently, most of the material dredged from the upper bay and Baltimore Harbor is placed at the Hart-Miller-Pleasure Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, located off the coast of Baltimore County. In addition to Hart-Miller Island, a small amount of dredged material is currently placed at an open water site called Pooles Island. Another containment facility is under construction on Poplar Island. In order to get the maximum use and life expectancy out of both the Hart-Miller Island and Poplar Island facilities, the Port Administration advises that another facility is needed as the amount of material that needs to be dredged exceeds the planned dredging and redeposit schedule.

A 1996 task force examined long-term options for handling the roughly 108 million cubic yards of material expected to be dredged over the next 20 years. The Governor's Action Plan for Dredged Material Management recommended that a combination of six sites, including an unspecified open water site, be used to dispose of clean dredge spoil. The Maryland Port Administration has recommended one open water site, known as "Site 104," as a short-term placement option that would hold up to 18 mcy of clean dredged material from the upper bay. Site 104, located about a half mile north of the Bay Bridge and a mile west of Kent Island, was used as a disposal site from 1924 until 1974; however, new permitting is required to reopen the site.

Should use of Site 104 be permitted, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) would be in charge of the dredging operation. In February 1999, the Corps completed a draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) that concluded that the use of Site 104 as a disposal site would not pose significant environmental damage. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publicly criticized the Corps' evaluation of the project. After review and analysis of public concerns and consultation with those agencies, the Corps announced in early August that it would formally revise the dEIS. According to the Maryland Port Administration, a revised dEIS is not expected until June 2000, which will delay the use of Site 104 as a disposal site until October 2001, at the earliest.

Several bills related to the use and placement of dredged material were introduced during the 2000 session. All of them failed.

Recognizing the need to wait for a final Environmental Impact Statement by the Corps, House Bill 68 (failed) would have placed a one-year moratorium on depositing dredge spoil at Site 104.

Senate Bill 26/House Bill 40 (both failed) would have prohibited the placement of dredged material at Site 104 before February 1, 2002, and would have established a 15-member Oversight Commission on Chesapeake Bay Dumping to investigate land-based alternatives for the placement of dredged material and sources of federal funds to offset any increase in costs arising from land-based placement.

House Bill 662 (failed) would have prohibited the depositing of dredged material at Site 104 and would have required the Maryland Port Administration to submit a strategic plan on dredged material management to the Legislative Policy Committee and the General Assembly by December 1 of each year.

House Bill 25 (failed) would have prohibited the depositing of dredge material at Site 104. Further, the bill would have prohibited open-water dumping of dredged material except within a five-mile radius of Pooles Island.

House Bill 731 (failed) would have established a 13-member task force to study the feasibility of utilizing Lower Eastern Neck Island or Parsons Island as a depository for dredged material.

House Bill 1204 (failed) would have established the Dredge Disposal Alternative Fund and pilot program in DBED to encourage the implementation of technologies and the development of end-use markets that help to protect the public health and the environment by using dredge material as a resource. The goal of the pilot program was to facilitate the reuse of at least 500,000 cubic yards of dredge material each year through processing and reuse.

House Bill 1061 (failed) would have established a tax credit for 50 percent of the amount of qualifying expenses for research and development related to beneficial uses of dredge material or implementation and use of these techniques, including construction and related costs.

Rivers, Streams, and Lakes

Potomac River

In 1996, the Fairfax County (Virginia) Water Authority, which draws millions of gallons of water from the Potomac River daily, applied for a construction permit to replace its existing intake pipe. The Maryland Department of the Environment has refused to issue a permit until a study of the impact of the proposed pipes on the health of the river has been completed. This matter is currently pending final decision by the Department of the Environment, after having been reviewed by the Office of Administrative Hearings. On February 18, 2000, the Commonwealth of Virginia asked the United States Supreme Court to order Maryland to clear the way for its project to draw drinking water for Virginians from the Potomac River above Washington. In a lawsuit filed directly with the Supreme Court, Virginia argued that Maryland officials are insisting illegally on retaining its veto power over the water intake tube.

In light of these matters, Senate Bill 729 (passed) and House Bill 395 (passed) were introduced in an effort to assess and identify future water supply and demand issues facing the nontidal portion of the Potomac River Basin. The bills require the Secretary of the Environment to submit certain reports to the General Assembly. The bills prohibit the Secretary of the Environment from issuing a permit for the construction of a water intake pipe into the Potomac River until six months after those reports have been submitted unless: (1) the new pipe replaces an existing pipe that is already in use; (2) the new pipe cannot be used concurrently with the pipe to be replaced; (3) the new pipe does not have the capacity to withdraw more than 5 million gallons of water per day over the amount authorized by the water appropriation permit; and (4) the new pipe is placed at least 30 inches below the water surface at the Potomac River's historic low flow. Senate Bill 729 provides more flexibility to the Department of the Environment by adding another method by which the Secretary may issue a permit before the required reports are submitted to the General Assembly. The Secretary may issue the permit if the Secretary determines that the issuance of the permit is in the public interest and the water intake will meet the following conditions: (1) the new pipe will replace a pipe already in use; (2) the new pipe cannot be used concurrently with the pipe to be replaced; (3) the new pipe will be placed at least 30 inches below the water surface at historic low flow; (4) the new pipe will not have the capacity to withdraw a greater quantity of water than the existing intake; and (5) the new pipe will incorporate a component that cannot be modified without the consent of the Department, that will limit maximum daily withdrawal to the maximum amount authorized by the water appropriation permit. The limitations on the Secretary's authority in both bills do not apply to a person who: (1) holds or applies for a permit to construct a water intake pipe or structure to withdraw water from the Potomac River; and (2) returns all or a majority of the water withdrawn to the Potomac River within three miles of the point of withdrawal.

Waste Management

Scrap Tires

Chapter 667 of 1989 established the State Used Tire Cleanup and Recycling Fund to support activities related to the cleanup of stockpiled scrap tires and for the collection, transportation, recycling, and processing of scrap tires in the State. The fund is supported through a tire recycling fee of up to $1 assessed by a tire dealer on the first sale of each new tire in the State. Chapter 627 of 1997 expanded the allowable uses of the fund and provided that the tire recycling fee terminates on July 1, 2000. Under current law, the fund is limited to a maximum of $15 million. If the sum of unallocated funds and the projected fees for the next fiscal year exceeds that amount, the Board of Public Works is required to adjust the fees for the next fiscal year. In recent years, the fund has had a substantial balance. According to MDE, the implementation of tire-related projects has occurred more slowly than anticipated. In fiscal 1997, the fund balance was adequate enough that $7 million was transferred to the general fund to support other environmental activities. In fiscal 2000, the beginning fund balance was approximately $9.5 million. The projected beginning fund balance for fiscal 2001 is almost $11 million.

In response to concern about the significant fund balance and the delay in implementing tire-related projects, Senate Bill 136 (passed) was introduced. The legislation provides for the continuation of the tire fee through fiscal 2004 but reduces the fee to a maximum of $0.40. Further, the bill reduces the maximum limit of the fund to $10 million, clarifies the allowable uses of the tire fund, and requires MDE to accelerate expenditures from the fund. Senate Bill 136 also limits MDE's ability to recover specified costs through reimbursements, changes the date by which MDE must submit its annual report on the fund to the General Assembly, and requires MDE to include in the report an account of expenditures from the fund.

The current tire recycling fee generates approximately $5.1 million in special fund revenues annually. The current fee expires on July 1, 2000. By continuing but reducing the tire fee, the fee will generate approximately $2 million in special fund revenues annually through fiscal 2004.

Under current law, generally, a person may not store scrap tires in the State or dispose of scrap tires in a landfill. Scrap tire haulers, collection facilities, other facilities, and recyclers are required to be licensed by MDE. Current law authorizes MDE to bring an action for an injunction or a civil action against violators of the scrap tire law. MDE may also impose administrative penalties. In order to deter the illegal dumping of scrap tires and to strengthen the enforcement powers of the State, House Bill 307 (failed) would have prohibited a person from disposing of scrap tires except through a licensed scrap tire hauler or by delivering the tires to an approved facility. The bill also would have established criminal penalties for violations of the bill's prohibition and specified provisions of current law.

Recycling

The 1997 Recycling Advisory Group and the 1998 Governor's Solid Waste Management Task Force recommended that the State establish a voluntary statewide diversion goal of 40 percent by 2005. Senate Joint Resolution 6 (passed) affirms those recommendations. The diversion goal will be accomplished by reducing waste generated at the source and by expanding existing recycling programs through the cooperative efforts of waste generators, State agencies, local governments, the waste industry, the recycling industry, environmental groups, boards of education, and other interested parties.

Air Quality

Commuter Benefits Act

In an effort to reduce air pollution from automobiles by reducing vehicle miles traveled, Senate Bill 244/House Bill 310 (both passed) allow a credit against the State income tax for employers who provide employees a "cash in lieu of parking program" or a "guaranteed ride home." The bills also allow specified tax-exempt organizations to apply tax credits allowed for employer-provided commuter benefits as a credit against the payment of employee withholding taxes required to be withheld from the wages of employees and paid to the Comptroller. Under current law, a tax credit exists for employers that provide certain commuting benefits to their employees. The credit is equal to 50 percent of the cost of ride-share commuting expenses provided by the employer, subject to a maximum credit of $30 per employee per month.

Administrative Civil Penalties

In an effort to increase the ability of the Department of the Environment (MDE) to assess penalties for air pollution violations administratively, Senate Bill 62 (failed) would have increased the maximum administrative civil penalty for an air pollution violation that MDE may assess to $10,000 per day per violation with a $200,000 limit for any single administrative hearing.

Smart Growth

In an attempt to prevent sprawling suburban development, Chapter 759 of 1997 established the Smart Growth program. Consistent with that initiative, House Bill 1206 (passed) requires a local planning commission, through its comprehensive plan required under Article 66B, the State zoning and planning law, to implement the vision that adequate public facilities and infrastructure under the control of a county or municipal corporation are available or planned in areas where growth is to occur.

Agriculture

Agricultural Land Preservation

The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) was created by the Maryland General Assembly to preserve productive agricultural land and woodland. Agricultural preservation districts are formed when qualifying landowners sign voluntary agreements to keep their land in agricultural or woodland use for at least five years. Landowners who agree to place their farms within an agricultural preservation district may sell a development rights easement on that property to MALPF.

The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program preserves land for agricultural use by purchasing perpetual easements from landowners. The landowner retains use of the land for agricultural purposes but may not use the land in a manner incompatible with agriculture. Since the program's inception over 20 years ago, approximately 150,000 acres have been preserved.

Development Rights

House Bill 301 (passed) requires a county to notify the MALPF of the total current development rights on a property when the county approves an application to sell an easement to the Foundation. Current law requires that MALPF obtain appraisals on easements before purchase. The number of development rights on a property may significantly impact its appraised value. The bill is designed to ensure that MALPF has an accurate appraisal of a property when deciding whether to purchase an easement and what price to pay for the easement.

Task Force to Study MALPF

House Bill 740 (passed) establishes a task force to study MALPF. The bill requires the task force to: (1) study the current program and practices of the MALPF; (2) study the financial standing of the MALPF; (3) review and make recommendations on legislation considered by the General Assembly in the 2000 session that would affect MALPF; and (4) make recommendations to improve the program, practices, and financial standing of the MALPF. The task force will issue an interim report on December 1, 2000, and a final report on July 31, 2001.

Matching Grants

House Bill 186/Senate Bill 255 (failed) would have required the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation to provide a matching grant to a county with a certified agricultural land preservation program in an amount equal to the lesser of

$1 million or the increase in the county's general funds used for an approved local agricultural land preservation program in fiscal 2001 over fiscal 2000. This bill was referred to interim study.

Lot Rights

House Bill 162 (failed) would have reduced the number of lots a landowner may exclude from an easement sold under the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation program from ten to four. The bill was referred to interim study.

Nutrient Management

During the 1997 Interim, members of the General Assembly and the Governor's Blue Ribbon Citizens Pfiesteria Action Commission (commission) studied the scientific and public policy issues regarding fish kills which occurred in lower Eastern Shore rivers in late 1996 and the summer of 1997. Of particular concern was the nutrient over enrichment of the waters of the State and its implications for promoting the growth of Pfiesteria. Specifically, the commission focused on the role of the chicken industry and the large quantities of chicken litter generated and ultimately applied to agricultural fields as nutrients for the soil. Chapters 324 and 325 of 1998 required farms to develop and implement nutrient management plans by certain dates, depending on what kind of nutrients are being applied to the land.

House Bill 327 (passed) amends the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 based on recommendations from the Nutrient Management Advisory Committee (NMAC) that was charged by the law to advise the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) and assist with the development of regulations. The bill requires the State to facilitate the transfer of livestock manure from farms that experience phosphorus over enrichment. House Bill 327 also expands the Poultry Litter Transportation Pilot Project to provide cost share assistance for the transport of all types of livestock manure from farms; removes a cap on cost share assistance for the development of nutrient management plans; removes the requirement that MDA provide for a religious exemption; modifies the definition of "animal unit;" and allows MDA to adopt regulations exempting specified agricultural research, education, and demonstration projects from the requirements to develop nutrient management plans.

Maryland Commercial Feed Law

The MDA advises that there are about 11,000 feed and pet food products registered each year. Legislation enacted in 1992 increased the registration fee for commercial feed products from $35 to $40 per product. MDA reports that additional revenues are needed to: (1) cover increased operating costs of conducting regular program activities; (2) expand the field inspection and laboratory testing of animal feeds and pet foods; and (3) analyze for additional components and contaminants in livestock feeds and pet foods to ensure that products conform to label claims. House Bill 158 (passed) increases the annual registration fee for commercial feed products from $40 to $50. House Bill 158 will increase the special fund revenues by an estimated $110,000 annually.

Pesticides

Pesticide Applicator Fee

Revenue from pest control certification fees are used to pay salaries and operating expenses of employees who conduct the pesticide applicator training, testing, and certification program. The fee has remained at $50 since approximately 1976. MDA reports that additional revenue is needed to fund increased salary costs and to address the increased demands on the pesticide program for applicator certification and training needs. House Bill 159 (passed) increases the annual fee for a pest control consultant certificate or pest control applicator certificate from $50 to $65. House Bill 159 will increase the special fund revenues by an estimated $48,000 annually.

Maryland Crop Insurance

Maryland farmers have suffered from three years of drought conditions. During 1999, farmers experienced this region's worst drought in decades. Although, the federal government provides federal insurance assistance, the cost of crop insurance is still relatively high. House Bill 1299/Senate Bill 849 (both passed) establish a Maryland Crop Insurance Premium program for the purpose of encouraging eligible farmers to participate in the Federal Crop Insurance program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to pay a farmer that is eligible to participate in the federal program up to $2 per acre for any federal crop insurance premium paid by the farmer.

Tobacco

Maryland Tobacco Authority

The Maryland Tobacco Authority is responsible for regulating the sale of leaf tobacco in Maryland. The Tobacco Authority was the subject of a sunset evaluation by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) during the 1999 interim. DLS found that the Tobacco Authority is adequately run and performing its statutory requirements of regulating the tobacco auction in a satisfactory manner. However, since market forces are in flux and the future of Maryland tobacco production is uncertain, DLS recommended that legislation be enacted during the 2000 session to extend the commission's termination date for only five years - to July 1, 2006.

House Bill 353/Senate Bill 364 (both passed) reflect the recommendations provided by DLS. The bills continue the Tobacco Authority until July 1, 2006. Additionally, the bills require the Authority to report to the General Assembly by December 1 of each year on the status of tobacco growing in Maryland.

Cigarette Restitution Fund - Tobacco Crop Conversion

Chapters 172 and 173 of 1999 outlined nine legislative spending priorities for the Cigarette Restitution Fund addressing health- and tobacco-related issues. The restitution fund was created for settlement payments from the 1998 tobacco settlement agreement. The fiscal 2001 budget allocates funds from the cigarette restitution fund money for converting tobacco crops to nontobacco crops. The bill contains a total of $11,500,000 ($9,000,000 appropriation for fiscal 2001 and a deficiency appropriation of $2,500,000 for fiscal 2000) to assist farmers in the transition of tobacco farms to nontobacco crops and the preservation of agricultural land. Of the funds appropriated, $11,400,000 is subject to specified restrictions and reporting requirements.

Maryland Horse Industry Board

The Maryland Horse Industry Board licenses and inspects horse racing facilities on an annual basis. Its mission is to ensure the safety of the public and the welfare of the horses at the stables it licenses. The Maryland Horse Industry Board would have terminated on July 1, 2001, without further legislative action. House Bill 299/Senate Bill 369 (both passed) extend the termination date of the Maryland Horse Industry Board until July 1, 2006, with a sunset evaluation required on or before July 1, 2005. The bill also requires the Board to provide information on its staff needs, fee structure, and long-term funding mechanisms to the General Assembly by September 30, 2001.

Industrial Hemp

Industrial hemp is a crop that can be used to produce textiles, ropes, cellulose plastics, resins, particle board, paper products, and oil. Industrial hemp is different from its better know relative marijuana, but both are derived from the Cannabis sativa plant. However, marijuana comes from the leaves and flowers and contains levels of three percent to 15 percent tetrahydrocannibinol, the chemical responsible for marijuana's psychoactive properties. Cannabis plants grown for industrial hemp contain less than one percent of this chemical. Both plants are regulated by the United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) as a Schedule I substance.

House Bill 1250 (passed) establishes a four and one-half year pilot program to study the growth and marketing of industrial hemp in Maryland. The pilot program will be administered by the Maryland Department of Agriculture in consultation with the United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency and the Maryland Department of State Police. Industrial hemp will only be grown on State property. MDA must ensure the safe cultivation and use of industrial hemp. In order to participate in the pilot program by growing, handling, transporting, or processing industrial hemp, an individual must be licensed by MDA, must register with the DEA, and must go through the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) for a criminal history records check.