Uncertainty clouds green agenda

Bills have O’Malley’s backing, but budget woes could hamper passage

But revenue estimates released Thursday showing a $333 million write-down through fiscal 2009 mean that the fund could be slashed in half, or more, by the legislature, lawmakers said.

The legislature will try to do ‘‘half of” the $50 million for the fund ‘‘next year or the year after,” Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Chairman Ulysses Currie (D-Dist. 25) of Forestville said Thursday.

On Wednesday, O’Malley (D) admitted that revenue estimates could reduce what the state can set aside this year.

‘‘I’m sure there’ll be pressure on the Chesapeake Bay fund to ramp it up rather than do it fully ...,” he said after speaking at an environmental rally. ‘‘Anything about which there is some discretion, there’ll be a lot of pressure to cut, to scale back, to implement more slowly, whatever words you want to use. But it’s all a part of the pressure to come up with $300 million in revenue right now.”

While environmental groups in recent weeks have heaped praise on the governor for his aggressive pursuit of green legislation, the Bay fund, reforms to the critical area law aimed at shoreline development and the Global Warming Solutions Act — all backed by O’Malley — could look significantly different by Sine Die.

The governor is confident they all will pass in some form, O’Malley spokesman Rick Abbruzzese said.

‘‘Considering the budget realities that we’re operating in, he’s continuing to work with the General Assembly,” Abbruzzese said. ‘‘He’s committed to the fund.”

Senators on Wednesday debated what the fund will go toward, rejecting attempts to use the money to restore Atlantic Coastal Bays or preserve scenic rivers and adopting an amendment to prevent it from being used to enforce anti-pollution laws.

Sen. E.J. Pipkin said he introduced the amendment because farmers were worried that the money would be used to target them for agricultural pollution.

Pipkin (R-Dist. 36) of Elkton questioned the wisdom of approving money for Bay cleanup during the special session.

‘‘We passed $600 million-plus in new programs at a time when we continue to see revenue shortfalls,” he said. ‘‘Someone’s got to stop digging the hole.”

Environmentalists say that while the fiscal and political timing is poor for the Bay fund, a 2010 federal deadline for reducing nitrogen levels in the Bay means there is an urgent need to pay for cleanup now.

‘‘Fifty million is the minimal amount needed for Bay restoration,” said Kim Coble, Maryland director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. ‘‘We are years and years and years behind meeting our goals. ... It may be painful to make the expenditures now. But it will be more painful as time goes ahead.”

House Environmental Matters Chairwoman Maggie L. McIntosh told about 200 people at Wednesday’s rally that her committee has a lot of work ahead on legislation but that she is optimistic.

‘‘We’re beginning to lay the framework for I think one of the best sessions in the Maryland General Assembly for the environment,” said McIntosh (D-Dist. 43) of Baltimore.

Just how successful environmental interests will be could depend on the final version of the critical area law. McIntosh has called it the ‘‘sleeper” bill of the session. Environmentalists have called it their top priority.

O’Malley appeared at a news conference supporting the bill Monday at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s headquarters. The bill would close loopholes in the 24-year-old law that developers have used to build near the water, destroying buffer zones that prevent erosion and pollution, he said.

‘‘It’s time to make the critical area law meaningful again,” O’Malley said. ‘‘It is also time to catch up with the expectations that the people of our state have of the critical area law.”

The bill would allow the state’s Critical Area Commission to prosecute or sue anyone clearing trees from land within 100 feet of a shoreline and would extend the buffer to 300 feet for new housing development.

County governments oppose the bill, which was heard in Environmental Matters on Thursday, because they worry they would be ceding too much authority to the state.

‘‘It’s far-reaching legislation that really upsets the balance established in 1984,” said David S. Bliden, executive director of the Maryland Association of Counties.

MACo is working on an amended version of the bill, but some lawmakers are not optimistic.

‘‘With the legislature’s bill crossover deadline on March 24, the bill could be too complex to find compromise this session, said Sen. Roy P. Dyson (D-Dist. 29) of Great Mills.

Meanwhile, the Global Warming Solutions Act is undergoing its own changes. Industry and labor unions contend that the requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would cost the state jobs.

After a joint hearing on the bill last week delegates and senators are considering making the emission reduction requirements merely a goal for the state.

Passing the environmental priorities won’t be ‘‘an easy lift,” said Del. Tom Hucker (D-Dist. 20) of Silver Spring. But it is important.

‘‘I don’t think it’s just about passing feel-good legislation,” he said. ‘‘It’s about passing environmental legislation that’s long overdue.”