|
The General Assembly, we believe, should
deal with natural resources subject by sub-
ject, rather than county by county. This
certainly is the logical way to handle the
problem. Natural resources do not recog-
nize artificial county boundaries drawn by
the hand of man, and I think it should be
quite apparent that variations between
counties could actually be harmful to the
conservation of natural resources.
I would also point out to you that the
public general law concept for natural re-
sources is in keeping with the local gov-
ernment article, whose commentary on page
26 states that public general law, and here
I quote, "might, in fact, deal with strip
mining which at this time might exist in
only one county. It could relate to conser-
vation of the resources of the Chesapeake
Bay or with the development of a river
valley, even though all of the counties of
Maryland could not border on the Bay or
river valley."
Now, that is from the local government
commentary. As indicated in these sen-
tences, regulatory legislation pertaining to
strip mining could really be passed by pub-
lic general law even though strip mining
might exist in only one county but, of
course, if and when strip mining does ap-
pear in another county, then this same law
would 'apply.
Now, I would also call your attention to
the fact that we have many regulatory
agencies in the area of natural resources,
such 'as the Department of Chesapeake Bay
Affairs, the Department of Water Re-
sources, 'and the Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries. Furthermore, under the
proposed constitution, the General Assem-
bly may empower some counties to enact
their own laws on a specific subject, per-
haps within certain guidelines constituted
by the General Assembly.
Just to give you an example, the General
Assembly could pass a law outlawing bill-
boards along all county and state highways
if it so desired, and it could then pass a
law saying that Garrett County and Wi-
comico County could pass their own laws
despite this general law in the area of bill-
boards. This gives you an idea of the
amount of leeway and flexibility that we
already have without getting into the
realm of local law.
Furthermore, if a natural resource mat-
ter is strictly of local significance, then I
say that the local county council or county
commissioners should control...At the pres-
ent time Article 25 (a), 65 (m) of the An-
|
notated Code of Maryland, recognizes this
by empowering charter counties to pass
local fish and game laws. We already have
this now for chartered counties. I repeat,
so such laws, by having this exception,
such local laws now could be shifted to the
General Assembly. Certainly this is a retro-
gressive step, and it would allow one sena-
tor and in some cases one delegate to be
the determining factor in a local law. We
believe that the county legislative body
should handle such local laws.
Now, in closing, I would propose one
more thought to you, and this is that I
would ask you to ponder well how broadly
the term natural resources could be inter-
preted. Could it not be the opening of a
wide door to a wide range of local law?
After all, subdivisions in each county need
water and sewers, and are water lines not
coming under, or could they not come under
the head of natural resources? So think
about this well. There are a variety of
ways, as I have stated, that natural re-
sources can be handled without letting the
General Assembly lapse back into the local
law pattern; therefore I urge you on behalf
of the lower, viable governmental units
that we are seeking and the more viable
General Assembly that we are also seek-
ing, that you give this amendment your
overwhelming support.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Mr. President and
ladies and gentlemen, what I have to say
about this will apply also to the subsequent
amendment that is going to come in to re-
move the exception pertaining to public ed-
ucation from this provision. I want to make
several things clear. The Local Government
Committee has no position on either of
these matters as such. In point of fact,
these were added because this was the in-
terpretation of the Style Committee when
the Committee of the Whole adopted two
provisions, public education and natural
resources provision. Let us see exactly what
we have now and what we are talking
about.
I favor leaving these two items in section
3.23 as they are. I want to state that and
make my position clear, but I do not think
that it is a particularly urgent matter one
way or the other.
At the present time, the General Assem-
bly, as you know, can vary laws pertaining
to resources, but what have they done? If
you look at Article 66 (e) where these ap-
|
