A ‘major step backward' in effort to clean up the bay

Friday, Nov. 6, 2009

A version of this letter was sent to Gov. Martin O'Malley.

I recently heard that the Charles County commissioners had come to you to plead their case for extending the cross-county connector on the basis of safety concerns for Billingsley Road.

This is an appalling misrepresentation of the real situation and is really only intended to facilitate additional sprawl development in the county.

The commissioners are now awaiting a decision by the MDE as to whether or not to issue the wetland permits necessary for the extension to be built. It is important to recognize at the outset that this highway extension is not necessary to handle commuter traffic and satisfactory alternatives have been identified for that purpose — alternatives which would not have additional costs for county taxpayers and would not have the harmful effects of the extension.

I am sad to report to you that the commissioners are largely following plans which date back to the days when Murray Levy was one of the commissioners and before Smart Growth became recognized and embraced by responsible planners. Their plans call for sprawling development in areas which are currently forested and relatively pristine. Further, the addition of this highway extension would facilitate development of thousands of additional acres of "deferred development" land, adding to the sprawl. All of this would severely degrade our quality of life in the county — more air and water pollution, fewer forests and wetlands, more noise and congestion, more demand on finite resources including water, taxes being unnecessarily spent to support inefficient growth patterns, more production of greenhouse gases and so on.

Smart Growth would direct additional growth to Waldorf, which is already our urban center and which already has the supporting infrastructure for growth. It also has a rail line which could serve mass transit needs as a sensible alternative to the "build more roads to handle sprawl" mentality.

And finally, I would call your attention to one of our truly unique resources which would be destroyed by the sprawl spawned by this highway extension.

I am speaking of the Mattawoman Creek, recently named the fourth most endangered river in the country. It remains pristine, but is teetering on the edge of succumbing to the pressures of development. You are probably already aware that it serves as the most productive of the Chesapeake Bay's tributaries for fish spawning and contributes in a major way to the national fishing tournaments held in the area.

It also still functions to clean water destined for the bay, a fact which would be reversed if the highway extension were approved and built. Hence, the extension is opposed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, fishing organizations, the Sierra Club and other regional forward-looking organizations.

At a time that federal interest in cleaning up the bay has been renewed, it would be a major step backward for the state to allow it to be degraded further by not protecting the Mattawoman watershed. It also would likely be counterproductive to our efforts to gain the cooperation of other states in cleaning up the bay — and especially those which do not border the bay.

Your department of the environment has done a superb job of reviewing the scientific evidence available on this issue, and (like Del. Peter Murphy). I very much hope that they will base their permitting decision on sound scientific evidence and not be swayed by political pressures from Charles County or those few state legislators from Charles County who support the extension.

We look to you to ensure that truth, and not misrepresentation, decides the outcome.

Ronald and Mary Lockwood, White Plains