HARRY HUGHES, Governor                                      3921

To the contrary, there are many conditions affecting the
subsoil integrity of a lot which change over time and, while they
are not necessarily confined to the lot or the immediate
vicinity, these changes may preclude the use of a septic system.
The most common examples involve changes in groundwater levels
and subsurface drainage. In addition, the owner's plans for the
use of the lot may change, such as the enlargement or
modification of an existing or proposed structure that may not be
appropriate for the septic system initially approved.

In addition, under House Bill 212 a lot owner could be
required to obtain another approval only if there has been "new
information indicating that the system would pose a threat to the
public health or to the environment." This provision may
seriously weaken the current regulatory authority of the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in protecting the public
health. Under §§ 9-218 and 9-219 of the Health-Environmental
Article, the Department is authorized to take action when a water
supply or sewerage system "may become prejudicial to health." In
upholding this standard in a precursory provision to §9-219 of
the Health-Environmental Article, the Court of Appeals noted the
importance of this broader authority by concluding that:
"Protection of the public health is not required to wait until
contamination is shown to exist. The statute is written to
operate prospectively for the protection of the public..." Board
of Health v. Crew, 212 Md. 230, 239 (1957). I believe it
important to the public interest to maintain this preventative
authority.

Despite the current requirements for environmental
evaluations of lots and advances in technological know-how,
septic systems continue to fail. Septic failures have occurred
in developments in Back River Neck, Bowleys Quarters, Cape St.
Claire, Cedar Beach, Deep Creek Lake, Mayo Peninsula, and West
Ocean City. Without the ability to require additional testing
and approval for a septic system, new information could not be
obtained which might reveal a potential threat to the public
health and suggest the need for remedial action.

The uneven implementation approach set forth in this bill
may be counter productive to effective environmental control.
Indeed, legislators have identified to health department
officials problems with inconsistent application of laws and
regulations relating to environmental health standards as a major
concern. In response, the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene is now implementing administrative measures to reduce the
uneven management of septic system permitting programs among the
counties. The exclusion of five counties representing
approximately 46% of the State's population from the provisions
of this bill can only exacerbate this problem. In the
implementation of its administrative measures, I have directed
the Department to work with the sponsors of the vetoed
legislation to develop an appropriate approach.

For the above reasons, I have decided to veto House Bill
212.